AT    LOS  ANGELES 


THE  PASSING  OF  THE 
COUNTY  JAIL 


Copyright,  1920,  by 
Stuart  A.  Queen 


THE  PASSING  OF  THE 
COUNTY  JAIL 


INDIVIDUALIZATION    OF    MISDEMEANANTS    THROUGH 
A  UNIFIED  CORRECTIONAL  SYSTEM 


.  -  - 

- 


BY 
STUART  ALFRED  QUEEN,  Ph.  D. 


Associate  Professor  of  Constructive  Philanthropy  in  Goucher  College 

formerly 
Secretary  of  the  California  Slate  Board  of  Charities  and  Corrections 


George  Hanta  Publishing  Company 

Mknasha,  Wisconsin 

1920 


PREFACE 

When  the  California  State  Board  of  Charities  and  Corrections  \ 
established  by  the  Legislature  of  1903,  the  interest  of  prison  reformers 
was  centered  in  the  penitentiaries.  This  was  true  not  only  of  Califor- 
nia but  of  the  entire  United  States.  From  the  days  of  John  Howard 
and  the  rise  of  penitentiaries,  debates  between  advocates  of  the 
Auburn  and  the  Pennsylvania  systems  quite  obscured  the  evils  of  the 
county  jail.  Yet  here  and  there  were  found  people  interested  in  petty 
offenders,  and  in  1869  Rhode  Island  established  a  State  Workhouse 
which  "was  to  save  men  and  women  from  imprisonment  in  jails  and 
prisons,  which  has  proved  expensive  and  worse  than  useless  to  all 
concerned."  But  for  most  people  the  state  prison  with  imposing 
buildings,  large  inmate  population  and  sometimes  sensational  evils, 
appeared  to  be  more  worthy  of  study  and  philanthropic  effort. 

When  public  attention  turned  to  the  needs  of  misdemeanants,  it 
was  restricted  for  the  most  part  to  the  problem  of  sanitary  jails. 
The  first  ten  years  of  the  California  State  Board  of  Charities  and 
Corrections  was  a  period  typified  by  the  building  of  "Paully"  jails. 
The  first  biennial  report  read:  "We  are  now  at  the  commencement 
of  an  era  of  jail  building  in  this  State.  We  are  passing  into  the  second 
stage  of  our  history.  .  .  .  Before  the  end  of  the  decade  most,  if  not 
all,  of  our  old  jails  will  give  way  to  modern  structures."  As  a  matter 
of  fact,  of  the  fifty-eight  counties  in  California,  sixteen  did  erect  new 
jails,  and  five  more  remodelled  their  old  structures. 

But  even  in  1904  the  Board  conceived  the  need  of  more  fundamen- 
tal changes,  and  on  the  same  page  with  the  statement  of  the  jail- 
building  program  it  said:  "We  believe  the  time  is  not  far  distant 
when  all  persons  convicted  of  violation  of  State  laws  will  be  considered 
and  treated  as  State  prisoners  and  confined  at  labor  in  State  institu- 
tions." Following  discussions  along  this  line  in  the  National 
Conference  of  Charities  and  Corrections  and  in  the  American  Prison 
Association,  a  bill  was  introduced  into  the  1911  Legislature  to  estab- 
lish two  state  farms  for  misdemeanants.  Being  a  first  effort  and  lack- 
ing public  support,  it  failed. 


219638 


VI  THE  PASSING  OF  THE  COUNTY  JAIL 

When  I  became  Secretary  of  the  State  Board  of  Charities  and 
Corrections  in  December  1913,  I  felt  that  the  great  need,  so  far  as 
"corrections"  were  concerned,  was  for  a  fund  of  information  to  back 
the  penal  farm  movement.  So  I  personally  visited  the  county  jails 
as  soon  as  possible,  accumulating  information  as  to  just  how  the  army 
of  petty  offenders  was  faring  in  California.  The  meeting  of  the 
National  Conference  in  the  spring  of  1914,  a  visit  to  the  Kansas  City 
Municipal  Farm  and  discussions  in  the  Commonwealth  Club  of  San 
Francisco  were  very  helpful  in  formulating  the  problem  through  the 
suggestions  and  criticisms  offered.  In  the  1914  report  of  the  Board  I 
presented  a  tabular  statement  of  county  jail  conditions  with  com- 
ments and  arguments.  With  this  as  ammunition,  the  passage  of 
another  "state  farm  bill"  was  urged  in  the  Legislature  of  1915. 
Again  inadequate  publicity  and  inexperienced  lobbying  ended  in 
failure. 

Looking  ahead  to  1917,  I  then  made  another  study  including  an 
examination  of  the  county  jail  records,  covering  personal  data 
concerning  31,000  prisoners  who  were  received  during  1914.  I  did 
most  of  this  work  myself,  but  was  greatly  assisted  by  Ernest  P.  Von 
Allmen,  agent  of  the  Board,  in  field  work,  and  by  Dr.  Jessica  B. 
Peixotto,  Dr.  Martin  A.  Meyer,  and  Rev.  Chas.  A.  Ramm,  members 
of  the  Board,  in  revising  the  data  for  publication.  The  results  of  this 
investigation  were  published  as  a  bulletin  entitled  "A  Study  in 
County  Jails  in  California."  This  pamphlet,  semi-popular  and  semi- 
scientific,  was  then  used  as  propaganda  for  reform  of  the  system 
of  handling  petty  offenders  by  (1)  commitment  to  state  institutions, 
and  (2)  indeterminate  sentence. 

By  the  opening  of  the  1917  Legislature  I  had  been  led  to  two  new 
opinions:  first,  that  the  Legislature  could  not  at  that  time  be  induced 
to  establish  the  desired  state  institutions  for  misdemeanants,  and 
second,  that  our  program  was  inadequate  because  it  made  too  little 
provision  for  individualization.  As  a  result  of  the  first,  I  drafted  and 
secured  the  passage  of  two,  bills  extending  the  possibility  of  outdoor 
work  for  men  serving  sentence  in  county  or  city  jails.  (These  the 
( .overnor  pocket-vetoed.)  As  a  result  of  the  second  opinion,  I 
entered  upon  further  study  which  has  developed  into  this  little  book. 
In  preparing  this  later  work  for  publication  I  have  been  again 
fortunate  in  having  most  valuable  counsel.  Dr.  Edward  Byron 
Reuter,  my  colleague  in  the  Gouchei  College,  has  read  the  manuscript 


Till.   PASSING  OF  THE  COUNTY  JAIL  vii 

and  offered  many  helpful  suggestion  .     Dean  Albion  YV.  Small  and 
Dr.  Ernest  \V.  Burgess  of  the  University  of  Chicago  have  also  do 

me  the  honor  to  study  the  work  as  a  whole.     Cue-  to  a  "basis  of 
individualization"  came  from  Professor  George  Herberl  Mead  of  the 

University  of  Chicago  and  from  Calvin   Derrick  of  the  New  ] 

I  )epartment  of  Charities  and   Corrections.      Both   have   been    kind 

enough  to  examine  critically  the  fifth  chapter. 

In  spite  of  the  recognized  weakness  of  the  "Study  in  County  Jail- 
in  California,"  I  am  again  undertaking  to  present  a  problem  of  social 
science  in  language  that  the  uninitiated  can  understand.  It  is 
admittedly  a  difficult  task,  but  I  hope  greater  success  will  attend  this 
effort  to  steer  between  the  Scylla  of  academic  obscurity  and  the 
Charybdis  of  newspaper  shallowness  and  sensation. 

S.  A.  Q. 
Goucher  College,  Baltimore, 
September,  1919. 


INTRODUCTION 

Crime  in  primitive  society  appears  to  have  been  the  violation  of 
custom  or  taboo,  the  normal  consequence  of  which  is  death  or  exclu- 
sion from  the  tribe.  Taboo  is  simply  the  reverse  of  custom,  which  has 
been  aptly  described  by  W.  I.  Thomas.  "When  for  any  reason  there 
is  established  in  a  group  a  tendency  toward  a  practise,  then  the  ten- 
dency is  likely  to  become  established  as  a  habit,  and  regarded  as 
right,  binding  and  inevitable:  it  is  moral  and  its  contrary  is  immoral." 
Such  habits  and  customs  gain  sacredness  with  age,  especially  when 
they  concern  the  whole  group.  Thus  importance  attaches  to  customs 
which  have  to  do  with  procuring  and  distributing  the  food  supply, 
birth  of  children,  initiation  of  youth,  marriage,  death  and  war. 
In  all  these  things  the  life  of  the  whole  group  is  involved.  Any 
irregularity  on  the  part  of  an  individual  is  met  by  the  full  force  of  the 
entire  group.  It  is  condemned  as  wrong  and  is  visited  with  severe 
penalties. 

Thus  primitive  crime  seems  not  to  be  personal  injury  so  much  as  a 
danger  to  the  group.  The  clanger  which  is  feared  is  associated  with 
the  new,  the  strange,  the  unusual  or  the  mysterious.  With  advancing 
culture  it  gathers  around  the  unseen,  spirits  or  deities.  A  little  higher 
in  the  scale  of  civilization  it  emerges  clearly  as  the  wrath  of  an  angry 
god  that  is  feared. 

Punishment,  then,  must  be  closely  related  to  ceremonial  and 
magic,  primitive  man's  devices  for  overcoming  taboo.  For  him  it  is 
necessary  to  remove  the  taboo,  to  offset  the  evil  which  may  accrue 
from  a  broken  custom.  With  the  evolution  of  spirits  and  deities  the 
situation  becomes  a  little  clearer  to  us  moderns.  A  spirit  might 
harm  the  group  unless  in  some  way  gratified  or  distracted.  A  god 
might  be  angry  and  have  to  be  appeased.  Violation  of  custom  then, 
becomes  a  disturbance  of  spirits  or  the  arousing  of  divine  wrath. 
Reparation  must  be  made  by  some  ceremonial.  This  might  have 
been  through  the  scapegoat,  through  sacrifice,  through  expulsion  or 
execution  of  the  offending  member. 

Wrhile  the  origins  of  crime  and  punishment  are  still  more  or  less 
obscure,  we  seem  justified  in  repudiating  the  popular  theory  that  they 


IX 


X  THE  PASSING  OF  THE  COUNTY  JAIL 

first  appeared  as  personal  injury  and  vengeance.  The  offender  stands 
from  the  beginning  in  the  role  of  an  enemy  or  at  least  a  source  of 
danger  to  the  group. 

Now  if  that  be  true,  it  is  easier  to  understand  our  modern  "retri- 
butive justice."  If  the  action  of  the  court  were  merely  the  settling  of 
a  personal  dispute,  the  regulation  of  personal  wrath  and  the  substitu- 
tion of  official  for  individual  vengeance,  how  could  we  explain  the 
"righteous  indignation"  and  "moral  enthusiasm"  which  gather 
around  a  criminal  and  his  punishment?  It  is  just  because  it  is  a 
group  affair  that  so  great  importance  is  attached  to  catching  and 
punishing  the  offender.  In  its  extreme  form  we  have  the  mob  and 
lynch  law.  Only  a  little  removed  from  this  is  the  sheriff's  posse  and 
the  man-hunt.  Not  only  are  the  chase  and  the  prosecution  a  game; 
they  are  a  game  in  which  we  are  identified  with  our  group,  with 
organized  society.  It  is  the  heightened  feeling,  the  letting  ourselves 
go,  which  also  appears  in  war.  We  may  go  the  limit,  because  the 
object  of  our  fury  is  an  enemy  of  the  group.  We  are  thrilled  by  the 
sense  of  unrestricted  activity.    We  enjoy  going  after  the  criminal. 

So  long  as  we  are  under  a  regime  of  retributive  justice,  punish- 
ments are  severe.  Death,  torture,  banishment  are  the  common 
forms.  But  when  some  use  is  found  for  the  offender,  these  rigors  may 
be  abated.  Instead  of  death  or  exile,  he  may  be  enslaved.  The 
property  relation  makes  it  possible  to  retain  him  as  a  partial  member 
of  the  group.  He  is  in  a  sense  an  enemy,  but  he  is  also  property. 
Hence  he  is  not  destroyed,  but  neither  is  he  allowed  to  share  the 
privileges  of  the  common  group  life. 

There  are  various  ways  in  which  further  mitigation  may  have 
occurred.  But  it  seems  likely  to  have  involved  something  like  this: 
some  members  of  the  group  saw  in  the  offender  more  than  an  enemy 
and  more  than  a  piece  of  property.  Perhaps  it  was  the  delin- 
quency and  punishment  of  a  kinsman  or  friend  that  occasioned  this 
situation.  Perhaps  it  was  a  personal  experience  such  as  John  How- 
ard's. But  whatever  the  way  in  which  the  additional  sides  of  the 
criminal's  life  came  to  attention,  it  has  created  a  problem.  The 
person  who  is  aware  of  the  offender  as  a  brother  as  well  as  a  violator  of 
law  must  struggle  with  two  conflicting  impulses.  Shall  he  deal  with 
the  delinquent  a  -  an  enemy  of  society,  or  shall  he  condone  his  offense 
because  of  kinship?  Perhaps  it  is  in  some  such  problem  situation  as 
t  his  that  tne  reformer  has  emerged. 


THE  PASSING  OF  THE  COUNTY  JAIL  XI 

As  an  effort  to  solve  such  problems  of  social  conduct  punishment 
has  actually  been  mitigated.  Death  has  given  way  to  banishment  and 
slavery,  and  these  in  turn  to  wer-geld  and  imprisonment.  But  most 
people  do  not  realize  how  very  recent  all  this  change  has  been.  Im- 
prisonment itself,  as  a  mititgationof  severer  penalties,  belongs  to  the 
modern  world.  Until  the  nineteenth  century  dozens  of  slight  offenses 
were  punished  by  death.  "Prison  reform'1  then,  is  largely  an  affair  of 
the  last  hundred  years. 

Now  the  role  of  the  reformer  is  a  difficult  one,  for  the  exhilaration 
of  the  man-hunt  is  gone.  Action  cannot  proceed  until  a  problem  is 
solved.  The  conventional  member  of  the  group  enjoys  the  excite- 
ment of  unimpeded  action  along  with  his  fellows.  But  the  reformer 
must  stop  and  make  a  deliberate  choice. 

There  is  one  sort  of  reformer,  however,  who  solves  his  difficult}' 
once  for  all  by  establishing  in  imagination,  if  not  overtly,  a  new 
group.  This  new  group  includes  the  criminal  and  sets  itself  against 
the  established  order.  It  takes  the  relatively  fixed  position  that 
offenders  are  the  victims  of  society,  that  they  are  abused.  The  senti- 
mental humanitarian  rushes  to  the  defense  of  the  criminal  with  all 
the  enthusiasm  displayed  by  the  conventional  man  in  pursuing  the 
criminal.  It  is  because  a  new  group  has  been  set  up  over  against 
the  old. 

The  clash  between  the  "dignity  of  the  law"  and  "sentimental 
humanitarianism"  may  be  stated  in  terms  of  severity  versus  leniency. 
The  humanitarian  accuses  the  legalist  of  inhuman  brutality.  The 
representative  of  the  established  order  charges  the  humanitarian  with 
"coddling"  criminals. 

So  long  as  the  conflict  is  on  this  plane — severity  versus  leniency- 
there  seems  to  be  little  hope  of  a  settlement.  In  these  terms  the 
problem  appears  insoluble,  because  it  is  group  against  group.  But 
there  is  another  sort  of  reformer  who  sees  in  the  offender  one  who  is  a 
danger  to  the  group,  but  who  is  for  all  that  a  member  of  the  group. 
He  seeks  neither  to  destroy  nor  to  condone  the  delinquent.  His 
desire  is  to  understand  him  and  the  reasons  for  his  crime  so  that  the 
offender  may  be  restored  to  normal  relations  with  his  fellows. 

This  is  the  point  of  view  of  the  present  study.  It  is  not  an  easy 
position  for  most  people  to  take,  because  it  means  holding  up  the 
act  and  weighing  circumstances.  It  requires  inhibition  and  post- 
ponement of  action  until  a  judgment  can  be  formed.     But  the  con- 


Xll  THE  PASSING  OF  THE  COUNTY  JAIL 

ventional  thing,  the  easy  thing,  is  to  respond  quickly  to  the  presence 
of  a  criminal.  The  careful  student  of  the  offender  (distinguished  from 
the  man  on  the  street  as  well  as  from  the  sentimental  humanitarian) 
misses  the  thrill  that  goes  with  united  group  action  which  is 
spontaneous  and  unhindered.  It  is  much  harder  to  make  a  social 
diagnosis  than  to  hound  a  man  to  prison  or  to  shoot  the  robber  hiding 
in  a  swamp. 

How  can  the  enthusiasm  of  the  sheriff's  posse  or  of  the  sentimental 
reformer  be  carried  over  to  the  diagnostician  and  the  correctional 
officer?  It  is  like  the  problem  of  transferring  interest  and  attention 
from  the  buffalo  hunt  to  the  domestication  of  the  buffalo,  from  the 
play  of  childhood  to  the  serious  work  of  mature  years,  from  conversion 
through  a  revival  meeting  to  religious  education  through  a  Sunday- 
School,  from  homiletics  and  dogmatism  to  scientific  investigation, 
from  fighting  fire  to  erecting  fire-proof  buildings,  from  stock-gambling 
to  cost  accounting. 

The  fact  that  such  transfers  of  interest  do  occur  is  clear  to  all. 
How  they  occur  it  is  difficult  to  say.  But  the  change  seems  to  involve 
a  new  definition  of  purpose.  The  economic  analogy  may  help  us  to 
appreciate  this.  So  long  as  his  main  interest  is  in  driving  competitors 
from  the  field,  a  business  man  thinks  of  his  firm  primarily  in  terms  of 
its  rivals.  But  when  a  monopoly  has  been  secured  or  in  some  other 
way  competition  has  been  modified,  the  corporation  may  acquire  a 
new  meaning.  No  longer  can  it  be  defined  in  opposition  to  rivals. 
It  must  be  stated  in  terms  of  its  processes,  its  functions.  The  quality 
and  quantity  of  output,  the  treatment  of  employes,  may  now  receive 
attention. 

The  prevention  and  salvage  of  waste  may  not  at  first  stir  men  as 
does  cut-throat  competition.  But  after  business  gets  going  and  settles 
down,  attention  turns  more  and  more  to  the  maximum  use  of  labor 
and  material,  and  presently  we  have  devotees  of  "efficiency."  So  it  is 
possible  that  retributive  justice  may  go  the  way  of  cut-throat  compe- 
tition, and  that  enthusiasm  may  be  aroused  for  the  prevention  and 
salvage  of  human  waste.  The  pages  which  follow  are  based  on  a  faith 
in  this  possibility. 


CONTENTS 

Preface v 

Introduction ix 

Index "7 

Chapter  Page 

I    The  County  Jail  System 1 

II    Substitutes  for  the  County  J  ah.  System 20 

III  Inmates  of  County  Jails  and  Other  Misdemeanants 41 

IV  Misdemeanants  and  Felons— An  Outgrown  Classification 72 

V     A  Basis  for  Individualization 102 

VI     A  Unified  Correctional  System 128 


Xlll 


CHAPTER  I 
The  County  Jail  Sys  i  em 

It  is  interesting  to  see  how  deeply  impressed  we  all  have  been 
with  the  imposing  structures  of  state  prisons,  the  large  number  of 
prisoners  there  assembled,  and  the  sensational  acts  of  which  they  have 
been  convicted.  Even  today  we  give  only  fleeting  and  scornful 
attention  to  county  jails  and  petty  offenders.  But  the  fact  that  there 
are  probably  one  hundred  local  jails  to  each  penitentiary,  and  twenty 
arrests  for  misdemeanors  to  each  arrest  for  felony1  might  well  cause 
us  to  transfer  the  emphasis. 

Most  of  us  feel  that  we  know  pretty  well  what  the  state  does  to 
burglars,  murderers  and  bigamists.  But  not  many  of  us  can  picture 
clearly  what  happens  to  "hoboes,"  "drunks,"  and  chicken  thieves. 
Yet  if  we  only  knew  it,  there  are  choicer  bits  of  scandal  in  the  county 
jail  system  than  in  all  the  penitentiaries  in  the  world. 

The  most  general  methods  of  dealing  with  the  miscellaneous  lot  of 
people  whom  we  call  misdemeanants  may  be  subsumed  under  the 
term  "the  county  jail  system."  The  situation  as  regards  municipal 
police  and  lock-ups  does  not  differ  fundamentally  from  that  involved 
in  the  sheriff's  office  and  the  county  jail.  Consequently,  as  a  matter 
of  convenience  and  brevity,  let  the  one  phrase  stand  for  both. 

A  complete  survey  would  include  police  methods — especially  in 
arrests — detention,  trial  and  treatment  after  conviction.  For  the 
purposes  of  this  study  it  seems  wise  to  deal  rather  superficially  with  all 
except  the  last.  We  are  here  concerned  primarily  with  what  is  done 
to  the  people  who  are  more  or  less  regularly  pronounced  guilty  of 
misdemeanors. 

To  make  a  simple,  and  possibly  dogmatic  statement,  what  happens 
in  the  process  of  becoming  officially  a  misdemeanant  is  about  as 
follows.  A  constable,  deputy  sheriff  or  policemen  sees  a  man  whom 
he  "sizes  up"  as  a  "bum,"  "booze-fighter,"  or  a  "suspicious  char- 
acter"; and  after  a  few  questions  tells  him  to  "move  on"  or  "runs  him 
in."    Or  perhaps  complaints  of  chicken  thieves  have  led  to  the  issue  of 

1  A  Study  in  County  Jails  in  California.     Sacramento,  1916,  p.  25,  92. 

1 


2  THE  PASSING  OF  THE  COUNTY  JAIL 

a  warrant  and  someone  is  arrested  on  a  charge  of  petit  larceny.  Or, 
again,  a  boy  delivering  newspapers  may  be  "taken  up"  for  riding  on 
the  sidewalk.  A  farmer  may  have  hitched  his  team  to  a  forbidden 
telephone  pole,  or  a  shopper  may  have  parked  her  car  on  the  wrong 
side  of  the  street.  In  these  last  cases  the  owner  of  the  vehicle  will 
probably  receive  instructions  to  appear  in  court  "tomorrow  morning 
at  ten,"  but  will  not  be  locked  up. 

Now  what  happens  to  the  person  who  is  "put  behind  the  bars?" 
He  is  led  by  an  officer  or  hauled  in  a  patrol  wagon  to  a  jail.  Here  the 
desk  sergeant  or  deputy  sheriff  makes  a  record  of  the  prisoner's  sex, 
age,  race,  the  charge  against  him  and  a  few  other  items.  He 
"searches"  the  prisoner,  takes  away  any  money,  knives,  keys,  etc., 
that  he  may  find.  Perhaps  he  will  throw  them  into  a  drawer,  possibly 
he  will  seal  them  in  a  manila  envelope,  and  it  is  remotely  possible 
that  he  may  give  the  prisoner  a  receipt. 

Then  the  iron  door  swings  open  and  the  "guest"  is  shown  to  his 
quarters.  Most  commonly  these  consist  of  a  steel  cage  inside  a  room 
with  carefully  barred  windows.  Around  the  cage  runs  a  corridor  for 
the  jailer.  When  they  are  inside  the  big  room,  the  jailer  unlocks  a 
steel  box  which  encases  the  levers  and  locking  devices  which  control 
both  the  cage  and  the  separate  cell  doors.  The  proper  levers  are 
pulled,  the  grated  door  opens,  and  the  prisoner  is  told  to  "get  in 
there."  Inside  the  cage  he  may  be  assigned  to  a  given  cell  by  the 
officer,  or  he  may  be  left  to  the  tender  mercies  of  a  "trusty."  Perhaps 
he  may  be  compelled  to  take  a  bath,  possibly  he  will  be  sprayed 
with  some  disinfectant  to  kill  the  vermin.  If  lucky,  he  will  get  a  pair 
of  blankets  and  a  straw  tick  that  have  not  been  used  very  long  since 
their  last  washing. 

He  may  go  to  court  next  morning  or  he  may  await  trial  for  a 
month.  If  he  is  a  "suspicious  character,"  he  may  be  held  for  as  much 
as  sixty  days  on  a  vagrancy  charge;  but  the  more  usual  procedure 
is  to  find  him  guilty  of  a  misdemeanor,  to  serve  sentence  while  evi- 
dence is  sought  which  might  convict  him  of  a  felony.  While  awaiting 
trial  he  will  probably  mingle  freely  with  other  men  in  the  cage,  some  of 
them  also  awaiting  the  pleasure  of  the  court,  others  "doing  time," 
and  possibly  one  or  two  held  for  lunacy  hearings.  He  will  join  in 
poker  or  "crap"  games,  he  will  share  in  the  "kangaroo  court"  if  there 
be  one,  he  will  do  his  pari  of  the  cleaning  each  day. 


THE  COUNTY  JAIL  SYSTEM  3 

When  he  goes  to  court  he  may  have  a  lawyer,  but  this  is  very 
frequently  dispensed  with.  Indeed  the  whole  trial  may  not  take 
more  than  five  or  ten  minutes.  \Yh;it  happens  to  him  depends  a  good 
deal  upon  the  habits  of  the  judge.  "His  honor"  may  be  accustomed 
to  "floating  undesirables,"  in  which  event  the  prisoner  may  be 
simply  told  to  "get  out  of  town";  or  he  may  be  found  guilty  and 
either  given  a  suspended  sentence  or  put  on  "probation,"  the  condi- 
tion being  that  he  "leave  town  within  two  hours."  If  the  judge  has 
the  "ten  day"  habit,  the  prisoner  will  receive  a  sentence  of  several 
days  in  jail,  ground  out  as  by  a  phonograph.  Or  mayhap  it  will  be  a 
fine  of  $25.00  which  means  25  days  in  jail  for  the  moneyless  victim. 
But  if  the  judge  is  worried  about  the  bolsheviki  or  has  had  a  bad 
night's  sleep,  the  offender  may  expect  to  "get"  anywhere  from  60 
days  to  6  months. 

Suppose  he  gets  a  jail  sentence.  He  will  then  return  to  his  cage  to 
spent  the  time  as  before,  gambling,  "spinning  yarns,"  planning  future 
crimes,  learning  I.W.W.  doctrines.  He  is  supposed  to  be  undergoing 
a  process  of  moral  regeneration!  At  the  expiration  of  his  sentence 
the  door  is  unlocked,  he  is  given  his  "property" — or  a  part  of  it — 
and  he  is  turned  out  on  the  street.  He  has  no  money,  no  job,  no 
friends,  his  muscles  are  soft  from  idleness,  his  skin  is  sallow,  and  his 
lungs  are  filled  with  stale  prison  air,  but  he  is  supposed  to  be  reformed. 

Perhaps  this  is  a  caricature,  but  even  worse  facts  have  been 
observed  by  the  writer  himself  as  an  official  jail  inspector.  In  any 
case,  this  general  statement  may  well  serve  as  an  introduction  to  a 
more  detailed  examination  of  the  county  jail  system.  The  most  of 
the  data  which  follow  were  collected  by  the  writer  during  the  years 
1913-1917,  while  he  was  Secretary  of  the  California  State  Board  of 
Charities  and  Corrections.  Some  of  them  have  previously  been 
published  in  reports  and  bulletins  of  the  board.2 

One  of  the  first  things  discovered  in  the  study  of  the  county  jails 
in  California  was  a  marked  variation  in  arrests  from  county  to  county. 
Apparently  some  officers  were  much  more  zealous  than  others  in 
making  arrests.  Taking  the  state  as  a  whole,  there  were  imprisoned 
in  city  and  county  jails  during  the  fiscal  year  1914-1915,  712  persons 

2  California  State  Board  of  Charities  and  Corrections.  Reports,  1904  to  date. 
Reports  for  1914  and  1916  prepared  by  the  present  writer.  A  Study  in  County  Jails 
in  California,  Bulletin,  1916,  also  prepared  by  the  writer,  and  based  on  investigations 
which  he  personally  conducted. 


4  THE  PASSING  OF  THE  COUNTY  JAIL 

for  every  10,000  of  the  entire  population.  But  in  19  counties  there 
were  less  than  100  prisoners  per  10,000  of  the  population,  while  in  7 
counties  the  ratio  exceeded  1,000  per  10,000.  In  Yuba  County  it 
went  above  2,000.  Surely  there  was  not  so  great  a  difference  in  the 
"criminality"  of  the  several  counties.  Neither  can  we  account  for 
the  variation  in  terms  of  main  lines  of  travel.  The  following  pairs  of 
adjoining  and  similarly  located  counties  make  this  clear,  especiallv 
if  reference  is  made  to  a  map  of  California. 

Variation  in  Relative  Number  of  Prisoners  ln  Adjoining  California 

Counties 
(Ratio  of  prisoners  per  10,000  population) 

Tulare 141  Merced 580 

Kings 964  Madera 1464 

Santa  Barbara 665  San  Diego 999 

Ventura 1068  Imperial 1736 

The  next  table  shows  similar  proportions  of  prisoners  in  counties 
dissimilarly  located  with  reference  to  main  routes  of  travel. 

Similarity  of  Relative  Number  of  Prisoners  in  Dissimilarly  Located 

California  Counties 

(Ratio  of  prisoners  per  10,000  of  population) 
Counties  on  main  lines  Counties  not  on  main  lines 

Placer 234  Humboldt 243 

Kern 558  Lassen 520 

Alameda 319  Sonoma 361 

Fundamentally  these  tables  show  tremendous  variations  in  the 
policies  of  peace  officers  with  reference  to  two  groups  of  men:  itiner- 
ant laborers  and  professional  tramps.  In  some  counties  the  ruling 
idea  seems  to  be  to  lock  up  every  unknown  or  doubtful  character, 
while  in  others  leniency  is  the  rule. 

Not  only  does  the  proportion  of  arrests  vary;  the  percentages  of 
convictions  likewise  shows  a  wide  range.  Comparing  counties  where 
there  is  also  a  city  jail  at  the  county  seat,  we  find  78%  of  convictions 
among  men  booked  on  misdemeanor  charges  at  the  county  jail  in 
Sacramento,  but  only  43%  of  convictions  in  Santa  Clara  County 
(San  Jo-t'i.  Comparing  counties  where  the  county  jail  also  does  duty 
for  the  <  iiy,  we  find  's^%  of  convictions  in  Placer  (Auburn),  but  only 
5<  J     in    Stanislaus    (Modesto).      Similar    variations    are    shown    by 


THE  COUNTY  JAIL  SYSTEM  5 

Everson  in  his  review  of  the  annual  report  of  the  magistrates'  courts 
of  New  York  City  for  1916.8 

New  York  City  Courts,  1916 

Proportion  of  Cases  Discharged  by  Different  Magistrates 

Maximum  percentage  Minimum  percentage 

discharged  by  any  discharged  by  any 

Offense                                                      one  magistrate  one  magistrate 

All  summary  cases 28.  7 . 

Intoxication 70.  0.2 

Teddling  without  license 79.  0. 

Speeding 14.6  1.3 

Proportion  of  Cases  Given  Suspended  Sentence  by  Different  Magistrates 

Speeding 60.  0.0 

All  cases 59.2  0.6 

Corporation  ordinances 60.8  0.2 

Disorderly  conduct 50 . 4  2.4 

Intoxication 83 . 2  0.7 

Rowdyism 75 .  0 . 

Vagrancy 50.  0. 

Peddling  without  license 90.  0. 

Lest  the  above  tables  be  misunderstood,  it  should  be  made  clear 
that  several  different  judges  are  considered  in  each  column.  What  it 
means  may  be  illustrated  thus:  Judge  A  discharged  28%  of  all 
summary  cases  coming  before  him;  while  Judge  B  discharged  only 
?%•  Judge  C  was  not  so  lenient  in  general,  but  discharged  79%  of 
his  intoxication  cases;  while  Judge  D  discharged  only  0.2%  of  the 
"drunks." 

To  supplement  this  rather  abstract  statement  by  names  men- 
tioned in  Everson's  review — in  the  vagrancy  cases  Judge  Brough  sent 
80%  to  the  workhouse,  put  10%  on  probation,  and  sent  10%  to  the 
City  Home.  Judge  Conway  suspended  sentence  for  50%,  fined  8.3%, 
sent  16.7%  to  the  workhouse  and  25%  to  the  City  Home  or  peni- 
tentiary. 

The  judges  sit  in  rotation  in  the  various  courts  so  that  each  one 
handles  cases  in  a  majority  of  the  district  courts  during  each  year. 
It  is  reasonable  to  suppose  that  on  the  whole  the  cases  tried  by  any 
judge  are  similar  to  those  of  his  colleagues.  The  great  variety  of 
dispositions  which  appears  indicates  that  what  happens  to  an  offender 
depends  less  on  his  own  deeds  and  needs  than  on  the  temperament  of 

3  Everson,  George:  "A  Year  in  the  City  Magistrates'  Court  of  New  York." 
Delinquent.     March,  1918,  pp.  14-20. 


6  THE  PASSING  OF  THE  COUNTY  JAIL 

the  magistrate.  This  notion  is  further  supported  by  the  fact  that  in 
these  courts  the  magistrates  each  sit  alone. 

Upon  the  men  who  are  actually  committed  to  jail  a  great  variety 
of  sentences  is  imposed.  In  California  in  1914,  county  jail  sentences 
ranged  from  2  hours  to  2  years.  For  a  single  offense — vagrancy — 
they  varied  from  one  day  to  six  months.  Less  striking  but  more 
significant  are  the  differences  in  typical  sentences.  The  lowest 
average  sentence,  15  days,  was  found  in  Marin  County;  the  highest 
average,  123  days,  in  Colusa.  Less  extreme  variations  are  San  Luis 
Obispo  18  days;  Sacramento  80  days.  For  disturbing  the  peace  the 
average  sentence  varied  from  12  days  in  Marin  to  104  days  in  Madera. 
In  Orange  County  the  "drunks"  got  an  average  of  7  days  in  jail,  while 
the  same  offenders  in  Santa  Clara  got  59  days.  For  petit  larceny  the 
averages  ran  from  41  days  in  Fresno  to  120  days  in  Orange  and  122 
days  in  Santa  Clara.  Vagrants  were  sentenced  on  the  average  for  12 
days  in  Riverside  and  90  days  in  Sacramento. 

The  modal  sentence  likewise  displays  great  variation.  In  10 
counties  it  was  10  days.  In  18  counties  it  was  30  days.  The  lowest 
mode  was  5  days  (Sonoma  and  Marin)  and  the  highest  150  days 
(Glenn  and  Modoc).  Let  us  illustrate  this  in  another  way.  Of  the 
men  sentenced  for  disturbing  the  peace  in  Marin  County,  43%  went 
to  jail  for  5  days  and  82%  for  10  days  or  less.  In  San  Bernardino,  on 
the  other  hand,  44%  got  30  days  and  38%  got  more  than  30  days, 
thus  reversing  the  proportion  in  Marin.  Sixty-three  per  cent  of  the 
sentences  for  vagrancy  in  Fresno  were  for  10  days  or  less,  and  33% 
were  for  exactly  10  days;  while  in  Sacramento  60%  were  for  60  days 
or  over,  j  Facts  such  as  these  just  presented  lead  us  to  suspect  that  the 
treatment  of  misdemeanants  is  determined  by  the  disposition  of  the 
judge,  his  theory  of  punishment,  or  the  capacity  of  the  jail,  but  not  by 
a  settled  policy  based  on  knowledge  of  the  real  needs  of  these  men. 

Although  practice  varies  from  one  county  to  another,  neverthe- 
less a  high  percentage  of  convicted  misdemeanants  serve  very  short 
sentences.  Roughly  speaking,  one  fourth  of  them  serve  ten  days  or 
less  and  two-thirds  serve  30  days  or  less.  Remembering  that  many 
have  firmly  fixed  habits  of  idleness,  or  at  best  of  intermittent  work, 
excessive  use  of  liquor  or  drugs,  or  other  vices,  I  he  significance  of  these 
short  sentences  must  impress  itself  upon  us.  Such  habits  are  not 
broken  in  10  day-  nor  in  30;  much  less  are  they  replaced  by  industry 
and  sobriety. 


THE  COUNTY  JAIL  SYSTEM  7 

In  the  third  chapter  it  will  be  pointed  out  that  as  a  general  pro- 
position, California  misdemeanants  are  residents  of  the  state,  but  of 
no  particular  county.  This  fact  is  tacitly  and  sometimes  avowedly 
admitted  by  courts  and  peace  officers  in  their  wide-spread  use  of  the 
"Jloaler"  custom.  Considerably  over  one-half  of  the  men  booked  on 
misdemeanor  charges  in  1914  were  not  convicted  at  all.  For  the 
offense  of  vagrancy  only  30%  received  jail  sentences,  and  in  four 
San  Joaquin  Valley  counties  only  5%  of  the  men  charged  with  vagran- 
cy were  convicted  at  all.  In  round  numbers  these  counties  "floated" 
2,200  out  of  2,300  men.  They  were  taken  to  court  and  dismissed  on 
condition  of  leaving  town  in  a  few  hours,  or  put  on  probation  or 
given  a  suspended  sentence  on  the  same  condition.  The  reasons 
seemed  to  be  that  the  jails  were  full,  the  men  were  known  to  be  non- 
residents, and  the  cry  of  the  tax-payers  for  economy  was  answered  by 
officials  who  were  forced  to  be  penny-wise  and  pound-foolish.  Some- 
times a  vagrant  was  "paroled."  This,  of  course,  was  a  joke,  because 
he  immediately  moved  on  to  some  other  community  and  was  lost 
sight  of.  We  were  informed  by  officers  that  in  some  cases  the  prisoner 
was  never  taken  to  court  at  all,  but  was  shown  the  open  door  and  told 
to  "get  out."  Occasionally  individuals  and  gangs  were  turned  away 
without  being  arrested.  This  practice  we  have  witnessed  ourselves. 
The  writer  was  in  Marysville,  California,  one  day  in  1915  when  a 
large  number  of  men — perhaps  200 — were  driven  out  by  the  officers. 
The  test  of  whether  a  man  should  be  compelled  to  move  on  or  not  was 
the  possession  of  a  meal  ticket  or  a  receipt  for  room  rent. 

We  frequently  found  such  notations  as  the  following  in  jail  regis- 
ters: "ordered  to  disappear,"  "floated,"  "ordered  to  leave  town  in 
half  an  hour,"  "ordered  to  leave  town  in  two  hours."  It  seems  appar- 
ent that  no  county  is  willing  to  assume  the  burden  of  caring  for  all 
petty  offenders,  real  or  alleged,  who  happen  inside  its  borders. 
Probably  no  county  ought  to  undertake  this  task,  but  somebody 
should  and  logically  that  body  is  the  state.  Local  authorities  are 
coming  to  recognize  that  the  problem  is  beyond  them.  In  the  fall  of 
1915  representatives  of  several  Southern  California  counties  met  to 
consider  a  plan  of  cooperation  in  dealing  with  vagrants.  They  talked 
of  joint  support  of  certain  officers  and  of  detention  camps  at  points 
of  entry  into  their  territory.  So  far  as  we  know,  the  plan  was  never 
put  into  effect,  and  anyway  its  main  value  is  that  it  constitutes  an 


8  THE  PASSING  OF  THE  COUNTY  JAIL 

admission  of  the  failure  of  present  methods  of  handling  misdemean- 
ants in  general  and  vagrants  in  particular. 

Another  aspect  of  the  county  jail  system  is  the  physical  condition 
of  the  jails  themselves.  Again  let  us  take  California  as  a  representa- 
tive state.  There  are  some  very  good  jails,  as  jails  go.  Sacramento, 
Yolo,  Humboldt,  San  Diego  and  Alameda  counties  have  institutions 
that  are  almost  invariably  found  to  be  clean,  light,  well  ventilated, 
with  the  prisoners  segregated  to  a  considerable  degree.  But  there  are 
still  so  many  jails  of  a  very  different  sort  that  a  description  of  one  or 
two  is  in  order. 

Imperial  County  Jail  consists  of  one  room  with  a  single  cage  of 
four  cells,  each  about  7'x9'x7'.  There  are  four  bunks  in  each  cell, 
thus  accomodating  in  a  very  crowded  manner  16  prisoners.  However, 
we  have  counted  30  men  in  this  cell  room,  and  are  informed  by  the 
sheriff  that  it  has  held  as  many  as  44  at  one  time.  There  is  one 
toilet  in  the  corner.  This  was  stopped  up  at  the  time  of  one  inspec- 
tion and  sewage  was  running  out  over  the  floor.  There  is  one  bath- 
tub usually  in  fair  condition.  Blankets  are  furnished  and  most  of  the 
prisoners  sleep  on  the  floor  or  on  top  of  the  cage.  During  part  of  the 
year  a  few  men  work  outside  on  the  public  roads. 

San  Joaquin  County  Jail  was  built  25  years  ago  to  accomodate 
80  prisoners.  It  is  fireproof  but  not  sanitary.  About  half  of  the 
second  floor  is  reserved  for  the  jailer  and  his  family,  an  arrangement 
which  makes  it  necessary  to  keep  a  considerable  number  of  prisoners 
down  in  the  basement  which  is  very  dark  and  damp.  The  cells  are  all 
"outside  rooms,"  but  the  windows  are  narrow  slits  completely 
covered  with  armor-plate  steel  through  which  are  bored  round  holes 
about  an  inch  in  diameter.  The  light  is  so  poor  that  it  is  practically 
impossible  to  read  even  in  the  middle  of  the  day.  The  vermin,  instead 
of  being  kept  out  by  examination  of  incoming  prisoners,  are  sprayed 
with  anti-germine,  the  odor  of  which  pervades  the  entire  jail.  The 
law  regarding  segregation  is  not  complied  with.  Witnesses,  men 
awaiting  trial  and  those  serving  sentence  are  sometimes  kept  together 
in  the  basement  cells  where  there  is  not  a  particle  of  furniture,  not 
even  the  conventional  wall-bunks.  They  sit  and  sleep  on  the  cement 
floors  over  which  arc  spread  dirty  mattresses  and  blankets. 

Contrasting  with  the  insanitary  conditions  of  Imperial  and  San 
Joaquin,  but  representing  an  enormous  waste  of  public  funds,  is 
Kern  County  Jail.     In  1014  Kern  County  (with  a  population  of  40,000 


THE  COUNTY  JAIL  SYSTEM  9 

and  an  average  of  40  prisoners)  erected  a  magnificent  jail,  more 
beautiful  and  more  expensive  than  the  public  library  or  high  school, 
surpassing  every  public  building  in  the  county  except  the  court  hou 
Every  modern  convenience,  except  private  rooms  is  provided  for  the 
prisoners.  The  sheriff  has  a  delightful  apartment  and  there  are 
suites  of  rooms  for  his  deputies.  Tall  columns  and  marble  lions 
guarding  the  entrance  impress  the  visitor  with  the  dignity  of  the  law. 
One  hundred  and  seventy-live  thousand  dollars  was  the  cost  of  this 
elegant  structure,  a  permanent  memorial  to  the  supervisors,  sheriff 
and  architect,  all  of  whose  names  are  engraved  on  the  cornerstone. 

These  descriptions  show  opposite  extremes,  but  taking  the  state 
as  a  whole,  three  years  ago,  half  of  the  county  jails  were  dark  and 
poorly  ventilated,  a  third  had  inadequate  bathing  facilities,  a  third 
were  overcrowded  at  some  time  during  the  year,  and  five-sixths  were 
violating  the  state  law  as  to  segregation  which  requires:  four  separate 
departments  for  (1)  men  awaiting  trial,  (2)  men  serving  sentence, 
(3)  witnesses,  etc.,  (4)  women.  The  conditions  in  1916  were  thus 
summarized  in  the  Biennial  Report  of  that  year. 

Bad  Conditions  in  California  County  Jails,  1916 

Not  safe  from  escape 8 

Segregation  lacking 29 

Crowded 8 

Dark 32 

Stove  heat  or  none 24 

Bad  air 18 

Toilets  dirty  or  out  of  repair 18 

Baths  unsatisfactory 11 

Dirty  throughout 12 

No  towels 20 

Lack  of  employment 43 

Careless  handling  of  prisoners'  property 25 

Kangaroo  Court 5 

No  night  jailer 16 

Insane  kept  in  jail 23 

Food  supplied  on  contract 56 

"Floater"  excessively  used 7 

Beds  unsatisfactory 20 

The  categories  used  in  the  above  table  are  admittedly  crude  and 
lacking  in  objectivity,  but  still  they  indicate  pretty  clearly  that  there 
is  a  serious  problem  centering  around  the  physical  conditions  of  the 
jails.    These  difficulties  might  conceivably  all  be  met  by  local  authori- 


10  THE  PASSING  OF  THE  COUNTY  JAIL 

ties,  but  the  expense  necessary  to  overhaul  the  unsatisfactory  county 
jails  would  suffice  to  equip  several  really  worth  while  state  institu- 
tions. The  latter  might  prove  to  be  a  good  investment;  the  former 
promises  at  most  only  poor  returns. 

Bad  as  the  physical  conditions  in  county  jails  may  be,  they  are  less 
of  a  problem  than  that  aspect  of  the  situation  which  might  be  referred 
to  as  prison  discipline.  One  key  to  the  difficulty  lies  in  the  fact  of 
enforced  idleness.  This  is  perhaps  the  worst  single  feature  of  present 
methods  of  handling  misdemeanants.  The  great  majority  of  convic- 
ted men  are  simply  locked  up  in  cages  like  wild  animals.  They  may 
twiddle  their  thumbs,  they  may  exchange  stories  of  criminal  exper- 
ience, they  may  gloat  over  perverted  justice,  they  may  brood  over 
wrongs  done  them  by  society,  or  they  may  sit  in  pious  penitence! 
In  1916,  only  15  out  of  58  county  jails  provided  anything  like  regular 
work,  and  in  most  of  these  only  a  fraction  of  the  convicted  men  were 
employed.  It  seems  strange  that  anyone  should  expect  such  enforced 
idleness  to  reform  a  wayward  man  or  woman.  People  in  jail,  like 
other  human  beings,  have  impulses  which  must  find  some  means  of 
expression.  If  circumstances  repress  the  normal  outlet,  some  perver- 
ted expression  of  a  perfectly  natural  impulse  is  apt  to  come  forth. 
Hence  the  tendency  of  jail  life  can  hardly  be  otherwise  than  to  fix 
and  multiply  bad  habits,  to  exaggerate  inherited  weaknesses.  It  is  a 
trite  saying  that  bad  habits  are  broken  only  by  putting  good  ones  in 
their  places.  Yet  we  presume  to  cure  the  delinquent  by  repression 
instead  of  directing  his  energies  actively  into  socially  useful  channels. 

The  employment  of  county  jail  prisoners  is  already  provided  for 
by  law  in  California,4  yet  this  is  rarely  taken  advantage  of.  San 
Bernardino,  Imperial,  Los  Angeles,  Orange,  San  Joaquin,  Solano  and 
a  few  other  counties  have  been  in  the  habit  of  employing  part  of  their 
prisoners  outside  the  jails.  In  some  counties  there  is  no  means  of 
providing  work.  In  many  more  there  are  not  enough  men  serving 
sentence  to  be  employed  without  financial  loss.  But  whatever  the 
reason  may  be  in  a  given  instance,  it  is  certain  that  a  great  majority 
of  California's  misdemeanants  spend  their  days  in  jail  without 
anything  in  particular  to  do. 

Now  this  enforced  idleness  combines  with  a  crude  congregate 
system  of  handling  prisoners  to  make  discipline  a  farce.     As  an 

*  Penal  Code,  Sec.  1613.     Political  Code,  Sec.  4041,  subdivision  29. 


THE  COUNTY  JAIL  SYSTEM  11 

abstract  proposition,  who  would  think  of  locking  up  a  lot  of  men  in  an 
empty  room  and  expect  them  not  only  to  behave  but  to  improve 
themselves?  Yet  this  same  impossible  result  is  presumably  supposed 
to  come  from  a  jail  sentence.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  something  very 
different  happens.  Sodomy  has  been  discovered  in  a  few  instances 
and  strongly  suspected  in  many  more.  Where  women  prisoners  are 
handled  by  male  officers  and  where  male  "trusties"  are  given  access 
to  the  women's  department,  there  is  at  least  no  assurance  that 
immoral  practises  are  not  indulged  in.  The  attitude  of  jailers  as  well 
as  prisoners  toward  matters  of  sex  is  often  anything  but  wholesome. 

At  one  time  while  inspecting  the  Los  Angeles  County  Jail  we  saw  a 
group  of  prisoners  playing  "penny  ante."  In  the  San  Joaquin  jail 
the  "openers"  were  evidently  higher,  for  we  saw  considerable  silver 
on  the  bench  where  a  group  was  playing  poker.  In  some  other  jails 
the  men  are  not  allowed  to  have  money,  but  they  may  pay  their 
gambling  debts  by  orders  on  the  deputy  sheriff  or  jailer  who  holds 
their  little  "pile." 

The  educational  side  of  county  jail  life  is  aptly  described  by  the 
Missouri  State  Board  of  Charities  and  Corrections:5 

A  short  time  ago  a  jail  was  visited  in  which  there  were  only  three  prisoners. 
One  of  these  had  served  at  different  times  twenty-five  years  in  state  penitentiaries. 
He  had  a  strong  personality,  was  interesting  and  at  home  in  jail.  The  young  men 
for  whom  he  was  playing  the  part  of  entertainer  and  consoler  were  serving  thirty- 
day  sentences  for  a  misdemeanor.  Their  lives  of  industry  and  good  citizenship  had 
been  interrupted  by  a  month  of  enforced  idleness.  They  were  given  an  opportunity 
to  see  the  best  side  of  criminal  life  from  a  past  master  in  the  work  of  crime.  They 
had  experienced  the  luxury  of  having  no  responsibilities,  of  being  warmed  and  fed, 
and  that  without  any  effort  on  their  part.  Such  experiences  would  perhaps  be  no 
temptation  for  men  with  good  family  connections.  But  with  such  as  above  described 
can  we  wonder  that  often  the  question  is  asked  as  to  whether  or  not  the  honorable 
life  pays?  The  sentence  of  these  men  had  been  brief  and  not  very  distasteful.  They 
had  learned  new  ways  of  evading  officers  and  an  easier  way  of  making  a  living.  If 
at  the  expiration  of  their  term  of  imprisonment  they  came  out  with  the  determination 
to  lead  lives  of  crime,  the  state  is  to  a  large  extent  responsible.  They  have  had  a 
chance  to  learn  that  for  certain  men  a  life  of  crime  is  attractive.  They  look  at  it  as 
a  proposition  in  which  there  is  much  to  gain  and  little  to  lose.  At  the  worst,  one 
can  only  be  arrested  and  cared  for  by  the  state.  Besides,  the  first  imprisonment  has 
cost  them  their  social  standing  in  the  communities  from  which  they  came. 

Another  feature  of  jail  life  is  the  "Kangaroo  Court."  This  is  an 
organization  of  prisoners  for  the  purpose  of  holding  mock  trials.    As  a 

6  Ninth  Biennial  Report,  1914,  p.  69. 


12  THE  PASSING  OF  THE  COUNTY  JAIL 

form  of  self-government  and  a  means  of  enforcing  cleanliness  and 
order  in  congregate  jails  it  is  not  altogether  bad;  but  it  has  possibili- 
ties of  injustice  which  make  it  an  institution  to  be  condemned. 
Following  are  the  "Rules  of  the  Kangaroo  Court"  of  Kern  County, 
California. 

January  1,  1915. 
I.     All  persons  entering  here  shall  be  searched  by  the  sheriff  of  the  Kangaroo 
Court. 

II.     The  judge  has  the  power  to  fine  an  inmate  from  one  to  five  dollars,  to 
be  used  for  tobacco  and  sugar  for  inmates. 

III.  All  persons  must  bathe  and  wash  their  clothes  at  least  once  a  week. 

IV.  Throwing  rubbish  or  spitting  on  the  floor  is  strictly  forbidden. 

V.     Inmates  must  keep  away  from  the  door  and  windows  unless  wanted  there. 
VI.     Noise  must  cease  at  10  p.  m.,  remaining  so  until  7  a.  m. 
VII.     The  judge  shall  appoint  inmates  to  do  necessary  work  each  week. 
VIII.     Any  person  disobeying  above  rules  shall  be  punished  as  the  judge  sees  fit. 
These  rules  have  been  approved  by  the  sheriff  of  Kern  County. 

When  making  an  inspection  of  Imperial  County  Jail,  we  had  the 
novel  experience  of  being  taken  for  a  prisoner  and  being  tried  by  the 
Kangaroo  Court  for  "breaking  into  jail  without  consent  of  the 
inmates."  We  were  found  guilty  and  fined  tobacco  for  the  crowd. 
The  Illinois  State  Charities  Commission  reported  in  1911  that  29 
county  jails  permitted  kangaroo  courts.6 

Knox  County  prisoners  have  a  Kangaroo  Court,  but  the  sheriff  carefully  super- 
vises it;  for  example,  he  will  not  allow  the  prisoners  to  fine  one  another  unless  the 
person  fined  agrees  to  it. 

This  statement  implies  what  is  doubtless  true,  that  in  other  jails 
prisoners  are  fined  whether  they  agree  to  it  or  not;  but  it  makes  little 
difference;  the  prisoner  is  likely  to  "agree"  when  he  knows  that  he  is 
apt  to  be  hazed  if  he  refuses.     In  regard  to  the  Peoria  County  Jail: 

The  men  do  most  of  their  own  disciplining  by  means  of  the  Kangaroo  Court. 
They  have  two  dark  rooms  for  punishment  cells,  but  the  usual  method  of  dealing 
with  a  man  who  has  violated  one  of  their  laws  is  to  sentence  him  to  hard  labor. 

We  have  often  had  occasion  to  suspect  that  if  a  prisoner's  color, 
the  angle  of  his  nose,  or  some  personal  habit  did  not  please  his  mates, 

•Illinois  State  Charities  Commission.  Second  Annual  Report.  1911.  pp.  44, 
."500,  312,  316,  322. 


THE  COUNTY  JAIL  SYSTEM  13 

he  would  be  compelled  to  do  a  large  share  of  the  daily  or  weekly 
scrubbing. 

Vermillion  County  Jail: 

The  prisoners  in  the  various  wards  have  Kangaroo  Courts.  As  they  are  allowed 
to  keep  their  money  in  jail,  it  would  be  very  uncomfortable  for  prisoners  who  refused 
to  join  the  court  and  thus  failed  to  contribute  their  money  for  the  purpose  of  news- 
papers, tobacco  and  other  articles  which  the  county  does  not  furnish. 

Another  aspect  of  the  jail  problem  is  ihefee  system.  Perhaps  the 
chief  difficulty  with  the  financial  administration  of  our  jails  is  this. 
The  duty  of  caring  for  prisoners  is  often  regarded  by  the  sheriff  as  a 
side  issue,  if  indeed  not  quite  outside  his  proper  duties.  In  line  with 
the  custom  of  requiring  fees  for  certain  services  rendered  by  other 
county  officers,  e.g.  the  recording  of  deeds,  he  feels  that  there  should 
at  least  be  extra  compensation  for  his  responsibility  as  jailer.  There 
are  two  ways  in  which  he  may  get  such  extra  pay  in  California.  He 
gets  mileage  and  a  per  diem  for  transporting  prisoners,  and  he  may 
have  a  margin  of  profit  on  the  feeding  of  prisoners.7  We  are  here 
concerned  with  the  latter.  Section  1611  of  the  Penal  Code  provides 
that: 

The  sheriff  must  receive  all  persons  committed  to  jail  by  competent  authority, 
and  provide  them  with  necessary  food,  clothing,  and  bedding,  for  which  he  shall  be 
allowed  a  reasonable  compensation,  to  be  determined  by  the  board  of  supervisors,  and, 
except  as  provided  in  the  next  section,  to  be  paid  out  of  the  county  treasury. 

This  section  sounds  innocent  enough,  but  what  actually  happens 
is  suggested  by  the  table  of  rates  showing  what  in  the  various  coun- 
ties was  considered  to  be  "reasonable  compensation."8  In  1914  the 
food  allowance  varied  from  10c  per  day  in  Santa  Clara  County  to 
$1.05  in  El  Dorado.  To  be  sure,  the  situation  is  not  the  same  in 
these  two  counties;  Santa  Clara  has  more  prisoners,  cooking  is  there 
done  by  "trusties,"  and  San  Jose  is  a  good  market  town;  while 
Placerville  is  farther  from  markets,  food  is  prepared  by  the  jailer's 
wife,  and  the  number  to  be  fed  is  small.  However,  it  is  fair  to  compare 
Santa  Clara  with  San  Diego.  In  both  jails  the  number  of  prisoners 
varies  from  50  to  100,  cooking  is  done  by  "trusties,"  and  good  market 

7  California  State  Board  of  Charities  and  Corrections.     1916:    51.     Penal  Code 
of  California.     Section  1611. 

8  California  State  Board  of  Charities  and  Corrections.     1914:    133. 


14  THE  PASSING  OF  THE  COUNTY  JAIL 

facilities  are  available.  But  in  Santa  Clara  the  sheriff  was,  at  the  time 
of  our  study,  allowed  only  10c  per  day  per  prisoner,  while  in  San 
Diego  the  allowance  was  373^c.  Apparently  one  of  two  things  was 
happening:  one  lot  of  men  was  being  underfed,  or  one  sheriff  was 
making  a  profit. 

A  description  of  state  supervision  may  be  permitted  to  round  out 
our  account  of  the  county  jail  system  in  California. 

Chapter  683,  Statutes  of  1911 

Inspection  and  Investigation  by  Board  of  Charities  and  Corrections 
Sec.  3.  The  board  is  hereby  empowered  and  authorized,  and  it  shall  be  its  duty 
as  a  whole,  or  by  committee,  or  by  its  secretary,  or  other  agent  whom  it  may  authorize, 
to  investigate,  examine,  and  make  reports  upon  the  charitable,  correctional,  and  penal 
institutions  of  the  state,  including  the  state  hospitals  for  the  insane,  of  the  counties, 
cities  and  counties,  cities,  and  towns  of  the  state,  and  such  public  officers  as  are  in 
any  way  responsible  for  the  administration  of  public  funds  used  for  the  relief  or 
maintenance  of  the  poor.  All  the  persons  or  officers  in  charge  of  or  connected  with 
such  public  institutions,  or  with  the  administration  of  such  funds,  are  hereby  required 
to  furnish  to  the  board  or  its  committee  or  secretary  such  information  and  statistics 
as  they  may  request  or  require,  and  allow  such  board,  committee,  or  secretary  free 
access  to  all  departments  of  such  institutions  and  to  all  of  their  records 

Plans  for  New  Jails  and  for  Alterations 
.    .    .      All  plans  of  new  buildings,  or  parts  of  buildings  for  any  of  the  public 
institutions  coming  under  the  provisions  of  this  section,  or  any  additions  or  altera- 
tions in  such  buildings  shall,  before  their  adoption  by  the  proper  officials,  be  submitted 
to  the  board  for  suggestions  and  criticism. 

Reports  and  Special  Information 
Sec.  6.  Any  public  officer,  superintendent,  manager,  or  person  in  charge  of  any 
said  public  institution,  or  with  the  administration  of  said  funds,  who  refuses  or 
neglects  to  furnish  said  board,  its  committee,  or  secretary,  the  information  and 
statistics  which  they  may  request  or  require  shall  be  subject  to  a  forfeiture  of  fifty 
dollars,  to  be  recovered  as  provided  in  section  4  of  this  act  for  disobedience  of  a 
subpoena. 

Chapter  338,  Statutes  of  1913 

Records  Prescibed 

Sec.  1.  It  is  hereby  made  the  duty  of  the  state  board  of  charities  and  corrections 
to  prescribe  forms  of  records  for  the  use  of  the  superintendents  of  county  hospitals 
and  almhouses,  and  jailers  in  charge  of  county  jails  and  city  prisons,  in  keeping  the 
records  of  persons  received  into  or  discharged  from  such  county  hospitals,  alms- 
houses, jails  and  city  prisons. 

Sec.  2.  Books  of  record  for  the  records  so  prescribed  by  the  said  state  board  of 
charities  and  corrections  may  be  printed  at  the  expense  of  said  board  and  furnished 
to  such  county  hospitals  and  almshouses,  county  jails  and  city  prisons,  at  the  cost 
thereof. 


THE  COUNTY  JAIL  SYSTEM  15 

Sec.  3.  It  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  superintendent  in  charge  of  any  such  county 
hospital  or  almshouse  and  the  jailer  in  charge  of  any  such  jail  or  city  prison  to  keep 
the  records  prescribed  by  the  state  board  of  charities  and  corrections  as  fully  and 
completely  as  possible,  and  any  superintendent  or  jailer  who  neglects  and  fails  to 
keep  the  records  thus  prescribed  shall  be  guilty  of  a  misdemeanor. 

Under  the  provisions  of  this  law,  the  original  form  of  which  was 
adopted  in  1903,  the  secretary  made  a  flying  trip  to  each  county 
about  once  in  two  years.  He  assembled  a  good  deal  of  information, 
made  suggestions  as  to  jail  management  and  urged  the  erection  of  new 
jails  in  numerous  instances.  Beginning  with  1914  more  frequent  visits 
were  made,  many  minor  improvements  were  secured,  and  many  more 
data  were  assembled  both  concerning  the  jails  and  their  inmates. 
Advice  was  given  as  to  the  construction  of  new  jails,  plans  and  speci- 
fications were  revised.  But  when  a  jail  was  found  to  be  notoriously 
insanitary  or  mismanaged  there  was  nothing  that  the  state  depart- 
ment could  do  to  force  the  hand  of  the  local  authorities.  We  shall 
refer  later  to  the  laws  of  some  other  states  which  make  it  possible  to 
meet  such  situations  as  this  much  more  satisfactorily. 

With  the  exception  of  probation  and  parole  for  misdemeanants  we 
have  now  a  fairly  complete  picture  of  the  county  jail  system  as  it  is 
found  in  California.  We  shall  not  attempt  a  detailed  description  of 
conditions  in  other  states,  but  will  call  attention  to  evidence  that  the 
California  institutions  and  methods  are  typical. 

We  cite  first   Miss  Hinrichsen's  summary  concerning  Illinois.9 

The  statement  was  made  in  a  preceding  paragraph  that  the  jails  in  Illinois  are  a 
powerful  factor  in  the  promotion  of  crime  and  degeneracy.  I  have  attempted  to 
develop  this  statement  in  detail.  In  summing  up  the  developing  paragraphs,  I 
present  the  following  reasons  for  my  statement:  (1)  Because  of  their  physical  con- 
struction. (2)  Their  method  of  operation.  (3)  The  fee  system  of  feeding.  (4)  The 
enforced  idleness. 

1.  Their  physical  construction  is  such  that  they  are  insanitary,  ill-ventilated, 
dark,  and  too  small  or  too  poorly  planned  to  permit  of  the  classification  of  prisoners, 
or  of  the  separation  of  the  healthy  frorr^the  sick.  The  health  of  the  men  must  suffer. 
Communicable  diseases  are  certain  to  be  passed  around  among  the  men.  The  lack 
of  fresh  air,  exercise  and  stimulating  interests  makes  the  men  particularly  susceptible 
to  disease,  both  physical  and  mental.  The  herding  together  of  all  classes,  regardless 
of  age  or  degree  of  crime,  spreads  a  moral  contagion  through  the  jail;  and,  as  with 
the  physical  contagion,  there  are  no  counteracting  influences. 

'Institution  Quarterly.     Springfield.     Vol.  7,  No.  1.     pp.  9-15. 


16  THE  PASSING  OF  THE  COUNTY  JAIL 

2.  The  method  of  operation  may  make  even  a  modern  jail  vilely  insanitary. 
Clogged  air  shafts,  disabled  plumbing,  filthy  bedding,  the  common  towel  and  drinking 
cup,  the  tub  in  which  all  must  bathe,  the  lack  of  steam  and  sunshine  for  towels  and 
bedding,  the  closed  and  grimy  windows,  the  presence  of  rats  and  vermin,  failure  on  the 
part  of  the  sheriff  to  enforce  the  classification  law — these  conditions  can  make,  and 
in  certain  instances  have  made,  even  the  better  jails  as  dangerous  as  the  worst.  On 
the  other  hand,  several  very  poorly  constructed  jails  are  made  habitable  by  the 
determination  of  the  sheriff  to  eliminate  as  many  evils  as  possible. 

3.  The  enforced  idleness  predisposes  the  prisoner  for  every  kind  of  moral, 
mental  and  physical  contagion. 

4.  The  fee  system  of  feeding,  long  recognized  as  a  legitimate  source  of  profit 
for  the  sheriff,  proves  to  be  a  cause  for  rousing  in  the  prisoner  a  contempt  for  the  law 
and  sends  him  forth  from  the  jail  a  greater  enemy  to  society  than  he  was  when  he 
entered  it,  and  more  fully  prepared  for  a  life  of  crime. 

Physically,  mentally,  and  morally,  the  men  go  forth  worse  than  they  were  when 
they  entered,  and  they  go  forth  hating  the  travesties  called  laws  which  have  been 
repeatedly  violated  by  the  officials  in  their  efforts  to  punish  them. 

If  anyone  should  be  tempted  to  regard  Miss  Hinrichsen's  state- 
ment as  a  flight  of  imagination,  let  him  read  the  concrete  word- 
pictures  of  99  of  Illinois'  101  county  jails.  Then  he  will  see  the 
evidence  accumulate  which  thoroughly  justifies  her  excoriation  of 
these  institutions. 

The  condition  existing  until  recently,  and  in  considerable  degree 
even  to  the  present,  in  Alabama  is  thus  described  by  Dr.  W.  H. 
Oates,  State  Prison  Inspector:10 

While  most  of  those  who  are  confined  in  jails  are  there  simply  for  safe-keeping 
and  awaiting  trial,  and  therefore  presumptively  innocent,  they  have  been,  as  a  ride, 
housed  in  unclean,  ill-ventilated,  foul  smelling  structures,  with  no  room  for  exercise, 
and  scant,  if  any,  provisions  for,  and  no  incentive  to,  personal  cleanliness,  and  exposed 
to  every  peril  of  fire  and  disease.  Their  food  has  been  coarse,  ill-prepared  and  ill- 
served,  and  every  auxiliary  with  which  modern  science  fortifies  the  physical  con- 
stitution against  the  inroads  of  disease  has  been  conspicuous  by  its  absence.  Nor 
has  there  been  any  provision  whatsoever  against  the  idleness  of  mind  which  begets 
viciousness  and  is  the  fertile  breeding  ground  of  crime. 

In  my  own  state,  Alabama,  the  above  described  regime  has  heretofore  existed. 
Everything  in  the  state  seems  to  have  grown  and  improved  with  the  single  exception 
of  the  jails.  No  additions  or  improvements  have  been  made  in  a  number  of  jails 
throughout  the  state  since  they  were  originally  built  many  years  ago. 

Absolute  ignorance  of  the  rudimentary  principles  of  ventilation  and  sanitation 
is  evidenced  in  the  building  of  these  old  jails,  and,  in  most  cases,  the  bulk  of  the 
money  expended  was  placed  in  a  commodious  residence  for  the  sheriff,  with  one  to  two 

10  National  Conference  of  Charities  and  Correction.     1914:    40-41. 


THE  COUNTY  JAIL  SYSTEM  17 

small  rooms  in  a  wing  of  the  building  for  the  jail,  in  which  rooms,  placed  in  the  center, 
are  the  cells,  usually  eighty  per  cent  solid  metal  with  twenty  per  cent  openings.  The 
elementary  principles  of  sanitation  were  totally  ignored,  and  so-called  disinfectants 
were  used  in  lieu  of  the  scrubbing  brush  and  soap.  Black  was  the  favorite  color 
used  in  painting  the  interior  of  the  jails,  resulting  in  a  dungeon-like  darkness  which 
was  almost  invariably  contributed  to  by  dirty  windows  obstructing  the  entrance  of 
light. 

Isolation  and  segregation  of  prisoners  have  been  totally  ignored.  The  hardened 
criminal,  first  offender,  and  the  juvenile  prisoners  have  been  confined  in  the  same 
cells,  thus  converting  our  jails  into  veritable  schools  of  crime,  and  the  constant  con- 
tamination by  association  must  have  been  incalculable.  Another  deplorable  fact, 
and  one  which  I  am  ashamed  to  say,  still  obtains,  is  that  there  are  no  matrons  in  any 
of  the  jails  of  the  state  of  Alabama.  Female  prisoners,  regardless  of  color,  or  the 
crime  of  which  they  are  accused,  are  cared  for  by  the  male  deputies.    .    .    . 

The  fee  system,  that  far-reaching,  deplorable,  pernicious  and  unwittingly 
criminal  method  of  compensating  sheriffs  and  other  officers  obtains  today  in  Alabama. 
The  result  of  this  system  nearly  beggars  description;  it  introduces  into  our  jails  the 
bad  effects  of  the  almighty  dollar;  prisoners  are  arrested  because  of  the  dollar,  and, 
shame  to  say,  are  frequently  kept  in  captivity  in  these  steel  cages  for  months  awaiting 
trial  on  account  of  the  almighty  dollar,  so  that  certain  officers  may  profit  by  feeding 
them  at  a  less  amount  by  far  than  the  state  allows  for  their  feeding. 

This  general  statement  of  Dr.  Oates  is  borne  out  by  detailed 
descriptions  of  individual  jails,  such  as  may  be  found  in  the  biennial 
reports  of  the  prison  inspector.11 

No  cases  of  contract  labor  were  found  in  California,  and  it  was 
taken  for  granted  that  this  evil  was  limited  to  certain  state  prisons. 
But  New  Haven,  Connecticut,  furnishes  an  instance  of  this  in  a 
county  jail.  During  the  five  years  ending  December  31,  1918,  the 
Metropolitan  Chair  Co.,  paid  the  county  $7000  per  annum,  and  was 
"entitled  to  the  service  of  all  of  the  male  persons  not  incapacitated 
by  illness,  except  some  twenty  or  twenty-five  whose  services  may  be 
required  by  the  jailer  for  other  purposes,  and  except  also  bound-over 
prisoners  and  prisoners  confined  on  civil  processes.  The  company 
is  entitled  to  the  services  of  such  prisoners  for  ten  full  working  hours 
on  Monday  to  Friday  inclusive,  and  nine  full  working  hours  on 
Saturday."  The  County  Commissioners  agreed  to  furnish  artificial 
light  when  necessary  in  certain  parts  of  the  jail  and  the  company  was 
entitled  to  the  use  of  various  parts  of  the  jail  and  yard  for  storage. 
Heat  and  power  were  to  be  furnished  by  the  county.  Under  this 
contract  the  county  apparently  received  $7000  from  the  company. 

11  Report  of  the  State  Prison  Inspector  of  Alabama.     1916. 


18  THE  PASSING  OF  THE  COUNTY  JAIL 

But  the  value  of  power  furnished  during  the  year  ending  Septembei 
30,  1916,  amounted  to  $2500,  rebates  on  account  of  reduction  of 
working  hours  were  $3550,  and  the  value  of  the  rental,  light  and  heat 
is  estimated  at  $4800.  Thus  it  appears  that  the  county  lost  about 
$1000  a  year  on  the  transaction.  This  is  not  to  mention  the  exploita- 
tion of  prisoners,  interference  with  discipline  and  further  develop- 
ment of  anti-social  attitudes.12 

The  California  study  did  not  include  an  investigation  of  court 
records  to  discover  how  general  the  practise  of  fining  petty  offenders 
may  be.  However,  in  compiling  statistics  for  the  1916  report  of  the 
State  Board  of  Charities  and  Corrections  we  found  that  one-fourth  of 
the  county  jail  prisoners  were  released  upon  payment  of  all  or  a  por- 
tion of  the  fine  imposed.  In  the  Springfield,  Illinois,  Survey  special 
attention  was  given  to  the  fining  system,  and  Potter's  findings  are 
worth  reviewing:13 

Fines,  as  we  have  seen,  were  in  1913,  by  far  the  most  usual  methods  of  disposing 
of  Springfield  offenders.  Indeed,  of  the  152  persons  found  guilty  by  the  county  and 
circuit  courts  out  of  a  considerable  variety  of  sentences,  70,  or  46  per  cent,  were  fined, 
many  of  them,  however,  receiving  jail  sentences  also.  Of  the  1,119  sentences  imposed 
on  persons  coming  before  justices  of  the  peace  and  the  city  magistrate,  791,  or  71 
per  cent,  were  fines.  Moreover,  most  of  the  fines  were  for  small  amounts.  Of  the 
county  and  circuit  court  fines,  43  per  cent  were  for  $10  or  less,  76  per  cent  for  $25 
or  less,  while  of  the  fines  assessed  by  the  justices  of  the  peace  and  city  magistrates 
60  per  cent  were  for  $3.00  or  less,  71  per  cent  for  $10  or  less,  and  84  per  cent  for  $25 
or  less. 

The  failure  of  fines  to  serve  as  a  deterrent  for  many  offenders  is 
shown  by  the  fact  that  23  per  cent  of  the  persons  fined  in  Springfield 
in  1913  were  rearrested  again  within  the  year,  and  13  per  cent  were 
again  convicted.  It  hardly  seems  likely  that  fines  will  keep  gamblers 
from  gambling,  drunkards  from  drinking,  vagrants  from  begging,  or 
prostitutes  from  soliciting.  The  imposition  of  a  small  fine  seems  about 
on  a  par  with  the  short  jail  sentence  so  far  as  displacing  anti-social 
habits  is  concerned.  It  offers  no  more  hope  when  the  offender  is 
feebleminded  or  suffering  from  a  nervous  disorder.  Moreover,  there 
is  a  certain  injustice  in  fines  as  a  means  of  punishment: 

H  Delinquent,  Jan.,  1917.     pp.  5-9. 

13  Potter,  Zenas  L.:  "The  Correctional  System  of  Springfield,  Illinois."  Spring- 
field Survey.     New  York.  1915.     pp.  17-30. 


THE  COUNTY  JAIL  SYSTEM  19 

To  a  man  of  some  means  a  fine  of  $.5.00,  or  even  $25,  is  slight  punishment.  But 
on  the  laborer  making  Si. 75  a  day,  and  perhaps  still  more  on  his  family,  which  is 
already  a  sufferer,  even  a  fine  of  $3.00  falls  heavily.  The  offense  may  be  the  same 
and  the  fine  the  same  in  two  cases,  and  yet  in  the  payment  the  poor  man  may  suffer 
the  rich  man's  penalty  many  times  over.  One  hundred  and  thirty-eight  persons  in 
Springfield  went  to  jail  in  1913  because  they  were  not  able  to  pay  their  fines  in  whole 
or  in  part,  44  being  unable  to  meet  even  a  fine  of  $3.00  plus  $1.35  of  costs.  Many 
of  the  largest  lines  were  assessed  against  vagrants  who  had  no  money  at  all.  In  such 
cases  fines  result  in  nothing  less  than  sending  people  to  jail  for  being  poor.14 

This,  of  course,  does  not  deny  the  fact  that  in  certain  instances 
the  levying  of  a  fine  may  help  to  prevent  the  repetition  of  technical 
offenses,  especially  when  used  in  connection  with  a  suspended  sen- 
tence. 

All  in  all,  the  county  jail  system  presents  a  pretty  dark  picture,15 
but  fortunately  something  better  is  already  in  the  making.  In  the 
succeeding  chapter  we  shall  describe  some  other  ways  of  caring  for 
misdemeanants,  ways  actually  in  use  at  the  present  time. 

11  Potter:    op.  tit.,  29-30. 

15  For  data  concerning  conditions  in  different  states  see: 

Colorado  State  Board  of  Charities  and  Corrections.  Biennial  Reports.  1898 — . 
e.  g.,  1916:  41-44. 

Connecticut  State  Board  of  Charities.     Biennial  Reports,     e.  g.,  1914:  38-45. 

Maine  State  Board  of  Charities  and  Corrections.  Annual  Reports.  1913 — . 
e.  g.,  1916:  33-54. 

Michigan  State  Board  of  Corrections  and  Charities.  Biennial  Reports.  1871 — . 
e.  g.,  1916:  7. 

Missouri  State  Board  of  Charities  and  Corrections.  Biennial  Reports.  1898 — . 
e.  g.,  1914:  68-71. 

New  Hampshire  State  Board  of  Charities  and  Corrections.  Biennial  Reports, 
e.  g.,  1916:  108-112. 

New  York  State  Commission  of  Prisons.  Annual  Reports.  1895 — .  e.  g., 
1916:  124-406. 

Prison  Association  of  the  State  of  New  York.  Annual  Reports.  1845 — . 
e.  g.,  1915:  2:  260-494. 

Oklahoma  Commissioner  of  Charities  and  Corrections.  Biennial  Reports. 
1908—      e.  g.,  1916:  31-36. 

Tennessee  Board  of  State  Charities.     Biennial  Reports,     e.  g.,  1917:  28-9. 

Virginia  State  Board  of  Charities  and  Corrections.  Annual  Reports.  1909 — . 
e.  g.,  1916:  17. 

Klein,  Philip:  "The  County  Penal  Institutions  of  New  Jersey."  Delinquent. 
Jan.,  1918.    pp.  14-18. 

Abbott,  Edith:  "The  Real  Jail  Problem."  Chicago.  Juvenile  Protective 
Association.     1915. 

Abbott,  Edith:  "The  One  Hundred  and  One  County  Jails  of  Illinois  and  Why 
They  Ought  to  Be  Abolished."     Chicago.    Juvenile  Protective  Association.     1916. 


CHAPTER  II 

Substitutes  for  the  County  Jail  System 

If  the  county  jail  system  which  we  have  just  described  were  the 
only  available  means  of  dealing  with  petty  offenders,  our  problem 
would  be  quite  overwhelming.  But  fortunately  other  methods  have 
been  tried,  and  experience  in  using  them  should  be  of  great  assistance 
in  devising  practical  substitutes  for  the  county  jail. 

One  of  the  first  for  us  to  consider  does  not  necessarily  do  away  with 
the  local  penal  institution  at  all;  it  is  state  control  of  local  jails.  This 
was  brought  about  in  Great  Britain  in  1877.  Three  acts  were  passed 
for  the  three  kingdoms.  Every  local  prison — i.e.  jail  for  the  confine- 
ment of  persons  not  sentenced  to  penal  servitude — was  transferred 
from  the  control  of  local  "visiting  magistrates"  to  a  central  adminis- 
trative authority.  The  expenses  are  paid  out  of  the  central  funds. 
A  good  many  jails  have  been  found  superfluous  and  have  been  closed. 
In  35  years  the  number  of  such  prisons  in  England  was  reduced  from 
113  to  56,  and  their  population  fell  from  21,000  to  15,000.* 

Numbers  of  the  American  states  have  provided  for  state  super- 
vision by  laws  similar  to  the  California  statute  quoted  above.  But 
the  nearest  approach  to  state  control  has  been  made  by  Alabama. 
The  act  of  1911,  amending  the  original  act  to  create  an  office  of  state 
prison  inspector  provides  among  other  things:2 

Sec.  5.  The  duty  of  the  Inspector  is  to  inspect  at  least  twice  a  year  every  county 
or  city  jail,  except  those  maintained  by  cities  or  towns  of  less  than  10,000  population. 

Sec.  7.  The  Inspector  has  power  to  order  the  local  authorities  to  put  a  jail  or 
almshouse  or  city  prison  in  proper  sanitary  condition,  and  to  make  such  repairs, 
alterations,  additions  as  he  may  deem  necessary.  The  only  appeal  from  his  order  is 
to  the  Governor. 

Sec.  8.  The  Inspector  has  power  to  condemn  jails  and  prohibit  their  use,  when 
in  his  opinion  insanitary  conditions  warrant  it. 

Sec.  12.  The  Inspector  has  the  authority  to  formulate  such  rules  and  regula- 
tions as  he  may  deem  necessary  with  reference  to  hygiene,  sanitation,  cleanliness 
and  healthfulness  of  all  jails  and  almshouses  in  this  state  including  town  and  city 
prisons. 

1  National  Conference  of  Charities  and  Correction.  Report  of  Committee  on 
Correction.     1914:  24. 

1  General  Ads  of  Alabama.     1911.     p.  356. 

20 


SUBSTITUTES  FOR  THE  COUNTY  JAIL  SYSTEM  21 

Sec.  14.  In  the  event  of  failure  to  carry  out  orders  for  repairs  or  alterations  or 
additions,  the  Inspector  may  remove  the  prisoners  to  the  jail  of  another  city  or  county 
or  to  the  state  penitentiary.  The  same  power  is  given  him  whenever  he  finds  it 
necessary  to  condemn  a  jail. 

Sec.  15.  The  penalty  for  refusal  to  obey  the  orders  of  the  Inspector  is  conviction 
of  a  misdemeanor  and  fine  of  $25  to  $500. 

In  the  detention  of  persons  awaiting  trial  some  progress  has 
been  made  over  the  typical  congregate  system.  The  California  law,  for 
example,  requires  that  persons  awaiting  trial  must  be  kept  separate 
from  those  serving  sentence;3  that  women  prisoners  shall  be  in  charge 
of  a  matron  and  segregated  from  the  men;4  that  children  under  the 
age  of  sixteen  shall  not  be  detained  in  jail  at  all.5  To  be  sure,  this 
legal  segregation  is  not  always  carried  out,  but  wherever  there  is  a 
well  organized  juvenile  court  and  detention  home  for  juveniles, 
children  at  least  are  not  subjected  to  the  influences  of  the  congregate 
jail.  In  Philadelphia  similar  provision  has  been  made  for  women 
through  the  establishment  of  a  house  of  detention  for  women  and 
girls  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  misdemeanants'  division  of  the 
municipal  court. 

This  House  of  Detention  facilitates  work  by  having  in  it  the  court  room,  the 
medical  clinic,  the  psychological  clinic,  adequate  quarters  for  the  probation  officers 
and  the  opportunity  to  classify  the  cases  to  be  detained.  Since  January,  1917,  it 
has  housed  all  the  girls  and  women  needing  detention  while  awaiting  court  action  by 
the  Municipal  Court — averaging  not  far  from  one  hundred  new  cases  a  month.  It 
has  also  given  shelter  to  girls  and  women  held  for  the  federal  authorities  as  witnesses 
or  prisoners  in  white  slave  or  drug  traffic  cases.6 

Court  procedure,  together  with  probation  and  parole  is  another  field 
for  experiment.  In  California  provision  is  already  made  for  adult 
probation  and  the  paroling  of  misdemeanants.7  However,  our  dis- 
cussion of  the  "floater"  custom  indicates  the  way  in  which  these 
laws  are  often  utilized.  The  chief  difficulty  seems  to  be  that  the 
administration  is  placed  in  the  hands  of  men  permeated  with  old 
traditions,  whose  minds  have  little  or  no  appreciation  of  the  possibili- 

» Penal  Code.     Sec.  1598. 

« Penal  Code.     Sec.  1598,  1616. 

6  Juvenile  Court  Law.     Sec.  14,  Chap.  631,  Stats.  1915. 

8  Rippin,  Jane  Deeter:  "Municipal  Detention  for  Women."  National  Con- 
ference of  Social  Work.     1918:    132. 

7  Penal  Code,  Sec.  1203.     Chap.  230,  Stats.  1913. 


22  THE  PASSING  OF  THE  COUNTY  JAIL 

ties  of  probation  and  parole  for  certain  offenders.  James  A.  Collins, 
formerly  City  Judge  of  Indianapolis,  told  the  National  Conference  of 
Charities  and  Correction  in  1914  what  he  had  done  in  the  direction 
of  "humanizing  a  court."8  Judge  Collins  presented  a  program  of  nine 
points,  all  of  which  have  doubtless  been  tried  elsewhere,  but  which 
taken  together  are  illustrative  of  a  forward  movement  in  the  courts 
which  deal  with  petty  offenders. 

1.     The  Suspended  Sentence 

During  my  term  I  suspended  judgment  in  700  cases  and  withheld  judgment  in 
7,559.  Of  this  latter  class  less  than  3  per  cent  were  returned  for  a  second  or  subse- 
quent offense. 

2.     Paying  Fines  in  Installments. 

Out  of  3,832  persons  placed  on  probation  to  pay  fines  3,220  paid  their  fines  and 
costs  in  full,  while  102  were  given  credit  for  partial  payments  and  committed  to  serve 
out  the  balance.  However,  205  were  unable  to  pay  anything  and  were  committed 
to  the  jail  or  workhouse.  In  152  cases  the  circumstances  of  the  families  were  such 
that  the  court  felt  justified  in  withholding  judgment  rather  than  committing  the 
defendants.  Out  of  the  entire  number  placed  on  probation  143  did  not  live  up  to 
their  agreement  with  the  court  and  re-arrest  was  ordered  in  each  of  these  cases. 

3.  Drunkenness  and  Pledge  System 
In  all  cases  of  first  offenders  charged  with  being  drunk  and  where  the  defendant 
had  others  dependant  upon  him  for  support,  the  court  made  it  a  condition  on  with- 
holding judgment  or  suspending  the  sentence  that  the  defendant  take  the  pledge 
for  a  period  varying  from  six  months  to  one  year.  Three  hundred  and  eighty-two 
pledges  were  taken,  all  of  which  were  kept  faithfully  but  27. 

4.     Medical  and  Surgical  Treatment 

It  was  not  an  infrequent  experience  for  the  court  to  find  persons  charged  with 
offenses  of  a  character  that  disclosed  physical  or  mental  defects.  Arrangements  were 
always  made  for  medical  care  and  treatment.  In  meeting  the  problem  presented  by 
such  conditions  the  court  had  the  cooperation  and  assistance  of  the  superintendent 
of  the  City  Hospital,  as  well  as  some  of  the  best  known  physicians  and  surgeons  of 
Indianapolis. 

5.    Separate  Imprisonment  of  Minors 

Through  an  arrangement  with  the  superintendent  of  the  workhouse  an  unused 
wing  of  the  building  was  set  apart  for  such  offenders  and  in  this  way  they  were  kept 
separate  and  apart  from  the  old  and  hardened  offenders. 

6.     Restitution. 
As  part  of  the  probation  plan  the  court  required  every  person  charged  with  any 
offense  involving  the  loss  or  damage  to  property  and  injuries  to  the  person  to  make 
full  and  complete  restitution  to  the  injured  party  before  the  final  disposition  of  the 
case. 

'National  Conference  of  Charities  and  Correction.     1914:    26-33. 


SUBSTITUTES  FOR  THE  COUNTY  JAIL  SYSTEM  23 

7.     Separate  Session  for  the  Trial  of  Women. 

Wednesday  afternoon  was  set  aside  for  the  trial  of  such  cases.  The  legislature 
of  1911  enacted  a  law  providing  for  the  appointment  of  a  court  matron  in  cities  of 
the  first  and  second  class,  and  this  act  prescribed  her  duties  as  follows:  "She  shall, 
under  the  direction  of  the  judge  of  the  city  court,  investigate  and  report  to  such 
judge  upon  the  past  histories,  conditions  of  living,  morals  and  character  and  habits 
of  all  women  and  girls  awaiting  trial  in  such  city  court  and  shall  have  supervision 
of  such  women  and  girls  while  not  in  actual  custody  until  final  disposition  of  the 
charges  against  them. 

8.     Domestic  Relations  Session 

Thursday  afternoon  was  set  aside  for  the  consideration  of  cases  involving  domestic 
relations. 

9.     Employment 

Through  the  probation  department  employment  was  found  for  some  600  persons 
who  had  come  before  the  court  as  delinquents. 

For  convicted  misdemeanants  outdoor  work  has  been  provided  by 
numerous  counties  and  cities.  We  have  visited  road  camps  for  these 
men  in  several  California  counties.  In  San  Bernardino  we  found  two 
camps  in  the  mountains.  A  gang  of  forty  to  fifty  prisoners  was  work- 
ing on  the  county  roads  in  the  vicinity  of  each  camp.  Some  of  their 
work  was  repairing,  some  of  it  the  building  of  new  roads.  The  prison- 
ers worked  eight  hours  a  day  under  the  supervision  of  armed  guards. 
There  was  nothing  of  the  honor  system,  but  they  had  the  advantages 
which  come  from  fresh  air,  regular  hours,  steady  employment  and 
wholesome  food.  At  night  they  slept  in  iron  cages  covered  with 
canvas.  Their  beds  were  wooden  or  steel  bunks  in  tiers,  furnished 
with  blankets.  Each  tent-cage  had  room  for  about  twenty-five  men; 
it  was  kept  clean  by  a  "trusty"  appointed  for  the  purpose.  Food  was 
prepared  by  a  paid  cook  assisted  by  "trusties."  In  Los  Angeles  Coun- 
ty the  prisoners  were  paid  ten  cents  a  day,  which  was  intended  as  a 
"stake"  for  the  return  to  a  life  of  freedom.  Family  deserters  received 
no  wage  themselves,  but  $1.50  was  paid  by  the  county  to  their  fami- 
lies while  the  men  were  working  on  the  road.9  Another  sort  of 
outdoor  work  is  provided  on  the  county  poor  farm.  This  has  been 
tried  with  success  in  Orange  County,  California.  It  has  been  more 
widely  used  in  New  Hampshire.10  In  the  latter  case,  however,  it  has 
not  been  possible  to  furnish  enough  work  in  the  winter  time  when  the 

•  For  a  description  of  the  road  work  in  Kalamazoo  County,  Michigan,  see  Annals 
of  the  American  Academy.     March,  1913,  pp.  90-91. 

10  Page,  Edwin  L.:  "New  Hampshire's  Experiment  in  Using  Prison  Labor  to 
Support  Paupers."     An.  Am.  Acad.     March,  1913.     pp.  115-121. 


24  THE  PASSING  OF  THE  COUNTY  JAIL 

number  of  prisoners  was  greatest.  Moreover,  neither  farm  nor 
road  work  is  just  what  is  needed  by  every  sort  of  man  who  happens  to 
get  in  jail. 

Another  experiment  has  been  tried,  apparently  with  a  goodly 
measure  of  success,  in  the  Washington  County  Jail  at  Montpelier, 
Vermont.  The  Vermont  legislature  in  1906  passed  a  law  permitting 
the  employment  of  county  jail  prisoners  outside  the  jail.  The  Wash- 
ington County  experiment  was  begun  in  the  spring  of  1907.  It  is 
thus  described  by  Sheriff  Tracy:11 

The  men  are  all  compelled  to  work  at  laborer's  work.  No  matter  what  his 
trade  or  profession  has  been,  he  has  to  do  the  work  of  a  common  laborer.  The  reason 
for  this  is,  that  this  is  a  strong  union  center,  but  in  this  way  we  have  had  the  support 
of  the  various  labor  unions.  The  pay  for  a  laborer  in  this  section  is  $2.00  per  day. 
Under  our  system  the  penal  board  has  taken  Si. 00  as  the  share  for  the  state,  and  has 
allowed  the  men  to  have  the  balance  earned.  During  the  last  six  years  we  have  worked 
over  1,200  men  outside  the  jail.  The  men  start  from  the  jail  before  seven  o'clock  in 
the  morning,  taking  their  dinner  pails  in  hand  and  work  sometimes  two  or  three  in 
a  place,  and  very  often  alone,  scattered  over  a  radius  of  twelve  miles,  and  during 
this  time  we  have  never  lost  a  man.  During  the  first  three  years  we  had  three  try  to 
escape,  but  during  the  last  three  years  none  have  made  the  attempt.  These  men 
go  to  their  work  dressed  like  the  ordinary  laborer  and  no  one  not  knowing  them 
would  for  a  minute  suspect  them  to  be  prisoners. 

The  jail  office  has  become  an  employment  bureau.  .  .  .  We  have  had  many 
a  man  serving  a  sentence  of  from  three  to  six  months  or  a  year  support  his  family 
and  keep  them  from  charity,  while  serving  sentence.     .     .    . 

No  prisoner  is  denied  the  privilege  in  the  evening  of  going  to  the  newstand  to 
buy  the  daily  paper,  or  to  the  tobacco  store  to  buy  his  tobacco  or  to  any  other  store 
to  purchase  what  he  needs.     .     .     . 

We  know  we  have  seen  some  men  start  with  a  new  purpose  in  life,  going  out  to 
try  and  redeem  the  past.     The  locking  of  a  cell  door  is  an  unknown  quantity  with 


us. 


12 


Another  method  of  caring  for  misdemeanants,  represented  by  the 
■workhouse  or  house  of  correction,  as  usually  found,  is  practically  an 
imitation  of  the  state  penitentiary.  That  is,  it  is  little  if  anything 
more  than  an  effort  to  apply  to  petty  offenders  the  traditional  plan  for 

11  Quotations  are  from  Delinquent,  Nov.  1913,  pp.  1-3.  See  also:  Delinquent, 
Oct.,  1917,  pp.  8-9;  National  Conference  of  Social  Work,  1918:  253-255;  Atlantic 
Monthly,  108:    170-179. 

12  Tor  other  descriptions  of  outdoor  work  for  misdemeanants  see:  Delinquent, 
Jan.,  1917,  p.  6,  Litchfield  County,  Conn.;  Journal  of  Criminal  Law,  6:684-688, 
Wisconsin. 


SUBSTITUTES  FOR  THE  COUNTY  JAIL  SYSTEM  25 

handling  felons.     However,  some  of  these  institutions  have  made 
innovations  worthy  of  careful  study.13 

Apparently  one  of  the  most  successful  has  been  the  Detroit  House 
of  Correction.  Beginning  in  1861  with  Zebulon  Brockway,  it  has  had 
a  succession  of  unusually  capable  superintendents,  who  have,  in 
addition  to  rendering  the  few  weeks  or  months  of  confinement  of 
some  value  to  the  prisoners,  made  the  institution  self-supporting.14 
The  purpose  of  the  House  of  Correction  is  thus  described  by  Brock- 
way  : 

It  was  intended  that  the  house  of  correction  should  accomplish  much  for  the 
hitherto  neglected  class  of  common  jail  prisoners.  Mental  and  moral  isolation, 
under  our  "social-silent"  or  "Auburn"  system,  thorough  supervision,  strict  discipline, 
with  complete  occupation  of  all  their  waking  hours — this  was  the  system  designed 
for  improvement  of  the  prisoners,  who  were  to  be  vigorously  engaged  in  instructive 
and  remunerative  mechanical  work,  with  opportunity  to  earn  something  for  them- 
selves while  imprisoned,  either  by  allowance  for  overwork  or  by  a  cooperative  system, 
or  both  together.  They  were  to  be  supplied  with  employment  on  their  release  and 
supervised  for  a  period.  ...  A  complete  educational  plan  was  early  outlined 
in  the  mind  of  the  management,  which  should  include  some  effort  at  education  for 
all  the  prisoners,  old  and  young,  men  and  women,  short  and  long  sentenced  prisoners. 
Special  efforts  for  the  religious  impression  of  the  prisoners  by  public,  private,  and 
carefully  arranged  ministrations  were  also  included  in  these  early  plans. 

The  Chicago  House  of  Correction  has  not  had  the  financial  success 
of  the  Detroit  institution,  but  it  has  made  progress  in  another  direc- 
tion.   It  established  in  1915  a  psychopathic  department.15 

13  The  line  of  division  between  what  is  here  called  the  workhouse  and  the  sort  of 
institution  to  be  presently  described  as  prison  farm  is  not  altogether  distinct.  How- 
ever, there  is  a  general  distinction,  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  some  institutions  officially 
known  as  workhouse  or  house  of  correction  have  been  classed  with  the  farms.  As 
samples  of  the  workhouse  type  we  refer  to  the  following:  Detroit  House  of  Correction. 

Annual    Reports.     1862 .     Chicago    House    of    Correction.     Annual    Reports. 

1872 .     New    York    City   Workhouses.     Department   of    Correction.     Annual 

Reports.     Allegheny    County     (Pittsburgh)     Workhouse    and    Inebriate    Asylum. 
Annual  Reports.     1870 . 

14  Detroit  House  of  Correction.  Annual  Reports.  Journal  of  Criminal  Law,  5: 
190-191.  Brockway,  Z.  R.:  Fifty  Years  of  Prison  Service.  New  York.  1912. 
pp.  68-85.     The  following  quotation  is  from  pp.  76-77. 

16  Kohs,  Samuel  C:  "A  New  Departure  in  the  Treatment  of  Inmates  of  Penal 
Institutions."  Publication  of  the  Research  Department,  Chicago  House  of  Correc- 
tion.    1915.     pp.  4-7.     See  also  Journal  of  Criminal  Law,  8:  837-843. 


26  THE  PASSING  OF  THE  COUNTY  JAIL 

All  those  between  the  ages  of  17  and  21  who  are  sentenced  to  the  House  of 
Correction  are  subject  to  call  for  psychological  diagnosis.  Of  these  there  are  a  number 
who  are  recommended  to  the  Psychopathic  Department  by  the  Boys'  Court.  To 
this  group  special  attention  is  paid.  Whenever  the  above  list  is  exhausted,  older 
inmates,  particularly  recidivists  are  interviewed.     .     .     . 

The  interview  is  begun  with  questions  regarding  his  school  and  trade  training, 
his  industrial  history,  the  positions  he  has  held,  the  amount  of  salary  received,  the 
length  of  service  in  each  and  why  he  left;  the  reasons  for  the  periods  of  unemploy- 
ment; the  work  he  is  best  able  to  perform,  and  the  kind  he  likes  best;  his  ambition 
his  prospects  of  employment  when  released.  We  then  obtain  a  full  and  detailed 
account  of  the  criminal  career  of  the  individual  from  the  day  he  first  found  himself 
in  difficulty.  Any  past  sicknesses,  accidents  and  diseases  are  noted.  Inquiry  is 
made  of  any  past  examinations,  mental,  physical,  or  both.  The  subject  is  then 
questioned  regarding  his  father,  mother,  siblings  and  other  relatives,  the  same  informa- 
tion being  elicited  regarding  them  as  was  obtained  from  him  personally.  ...  It 
is  but  natural  to  expect  that  this  history  will  only  approach  accuracy,  but  will  never 
attain  it.  The  services  of  a  field  worker  are  necessary  to  verify  and  supplement  the 
data. 

With  this  personal-industrial-sociological-family  history  more  or  less  complete, 
we  pass  on  to  our  mental  tests.  Our  main  instrument  here,  is  of  course,  the  Binet 
Scale  as  adapted  by  Dr.  Goddard  at  the  Vineland  Training  School.     .     .     . 

On  the  basis  of  the  information  obtained  a  report  on  each  individual  case  is 
made  and  the  record  placed  in  the  hands  of  the  Superintendent  who  acts  upon  the 
recommendations.  As  a  result  of  the  examination,  any  of  these  three  courses  may  be 
followed,  depending  upon  general  conditions:  (a)  the  inmate  may  be  placed  in  a 
special  class  for  mental  defectives;  or,  (b)  he  may  be  placed  at  work  that  will  benefit 
him  most,  work  that  will  give  him  the  training  and  experience  necessary  to  gain 
him  entry  into  that  industry  after  his  release;  or,  (c)  he  may  be  merely  placed  at 
ordinary  labor  on  the  grounds. 

Here  is  the  beginning  of  a  program  of  individualization,  but  the 
limited  facilities  of  the  house  of  correction  together  with  the  short 
sentences  makes  it  hard  to  achieve  any  permanent  results. 

Bearing  resemblances  both  to  the  house  of  correction  and  to  the 
outdoor  work  already  described  is  the  local  farm  colony  for  misde- 
meanants. Such  institutions  have  been  established  by  the  cities  of 
Washington,  D.  C,  Cleveland,  Ohio,  Kansas  City,  Missouri,  Houston, 
Texas,  and  Lynchburg,  Virginia.16 

18  Washington — District  of  Columbia  Workhouse.     Annual  Reports.     1911 — . 
Cleveland— Nat.  Conf.  Char,  and  Corr.     1912:     191-195,  437-439.     American 
Prison  Assn.     1913:    180-186. 

Kansas  City — Board  of  Public  Welfare.     Annual  Reports.     1910 — . 
Houston — Houston  Foundation.     Report.     Dec,  1917. 
Lynchburg — Virginia  State  Board  of  Char,  and  Corr.     1916:    21. 


SUBSTITUTES  FOR  THE  COUNTY  JAIL  SYSTEM  27 

Probably  the  best  developed  of  these  municipal  prison  farms  is 
the  District  of  Columbia  Workhouse  near  Occoquan,  Virginia.  This 
institution  was  established  in  1910,  and  located  on  1150  acres  of  land 
twenty-four  miles  south  of  Washington.  Twenty-nine  prisoners 
were  first  transferred  from  the  old  workhouse  in  the  city.  Their 
immediate  task  was  to  erect  a  barbed  wire  fence  around  some  three 
acres  of  land  enclosing  tents  which  were  used  as  temporary  dormi- 
tories, dining  room,  store-house,  kitchen,  etc.  By  the  first  of  August 
there  were  accomodations  for  300  prisoners.  The  next  60  days  were 
spent  in  the  construction  of  a  road  a  mile  and  a  quarter  long  extend- 
ing to  the  permanent  location.  Very  plain,  simple  buildings  were 
erected  and  in  December  the  inmate  population  was  moved.  After 
the  transfer  to  the  new  quarters,  plans  were  laid  for  completing  as 
quickly  as  possible  the  physical  part  of  the  plant  for  the  safe-keeping, 
feeding  and  caring  for  600  male  and  125  female  prisoners.  This 
meant  that  two  separate  institutions  had  to  be  constructed.  In 
addition  to  this  it  was  necessary  to  make  plans  for  the  development 
of  the  land,  clearing  brush,  cutting  timber,  pulling  stumps,  preparing 
the  soil  by  use  of  lime  and  fertilizer. 

Because  of  the  thick  underbrush,  each  guard  was  given  a  squad  of 
only  six  prisoners.  But  as  the  work  progressed,  this  number  was 
gradually  increased  to  about  20.  This  was  only  the  beginning  of  a 
policy  of  progressive  removal  of  restraints.  In  the  fiscal  year  1913- 
1914  the  10-foot  barbed  wire  stockade  fence  was  taken  down.  Now 
there  is  no  longer  any  dependence  upon  walls,  locks  or  bars,  with 
the  exception  of  twelve  rooms  used  for  disciplinary  measures. 

The  buildings  are  all  one-story,  wooden,  with  a  view  to  giving 
ample  light  and  ventilation.  The  congregate  system  has  been  adop- 
ted. Two  hundred  prisoners  are  taken  care  of  during  the  night  in 
each  dormitory.  Cots  are  arranged  side  by  side  on  raised  platforms, 
and  sufficient  bedding — mattress,  sheets,  pillow,  blankets  and  com- 
forts— is  given  to  each  prisoner.  All  the  buildings  are  equipped  with 
steam  heat,  electric  lights,  and  have  other  modern  conveniences, 
albeit  they  are  simple  and  inexpensive.  While  the  prisoners  sleep 
there  are  only  five  paid  officers  and  six  prisoner  sentinels  on  guard,  in 
spite  of  the  fact  that  doors  and  windows  are  alike  unbarred  and 
unlocked.    Escapes  are  very  few  in  number. 

During  the  evening,  after  the  day's  work  is  done,  and  on  Sundays, 
the  men  are  taken  to  a  large  building  known  as  the  rest  hall  and 


28  THE  PASSING  OF  THE  COUNTY  JAIL 

library,  where  they  are  permitted  to  talk,  play  checkers,  or  read  the 
daily  papers.  They  have  access  to  the  library  of  4,000  volumes.  On 
summer  evenings  and  Sundays  the  inmates  are  permitted  to  take  the 
benches  out  into  the  yard,  where  it  is  possible  to  enjoy  more  freedom 
and  have  an  abundance  of  fresh  air. 

The  work  on  the  1150  acres  of  land  includes  road-building,  con- 
struction of  buildings,  brick-making,  stone-crushing,  building  and 
repairing  wagons,  painting  and  whitewashing  the  buildings,  farming, 
poultry-raising,  dairying  and  many  other  things  that  go  with  the 
up-keep  of  an  institution. 

The  women's  department  is  managed  by  women,  and  is  some  dis- 
tance from  the  men's.  The  women  do  laundry  work  and  make  clothes 
for  the  prisoners  of  both  departments.  In  addition  a  number  of  them 
work  on  the  lawn  and  in  the  garden,  do  the  painting  and  other  sani- 
tary work  about  the  buildings.  The  women's  department,  like  the 
men's,  has  neither  cell,  lock  nor  bar.  The  buildings  are  one-story, 
with  neither  wall  nor  fence  around  them.  Nevertheless,  during  the 
first  three  and  a  half  years,  out  of  3000  women  handled  only  three 
were  lost  through  escaping.17 

The  other  municipal  farms  are  more  or  less  like  the  one  at  Occo- 
quan.  Their  superiority  to  the  county  jail  is  well  established.  But 
they,  too,  are  handicapped  by  the  fixed,  short  sentences,  and  by  lack 
of  proper  facilities  for  individualization  of  their  wards.  Moreover, 
they  do  not  at  all  meet  the  problems  of  the  small  community. 

The  last  mentioned  difficulty  is  overcome  in  part  by  state  farms  for 
misdemeanants.  Such  institutions  have  been  established  in  Massa- 
chusetts,  Rhode   Island,   Indiana  and  New  York.18     The  Massa- 

17  District  of  Columbia  Workhouse.  Annual  Reports.  1911 — .  National  Conf. 
Char,  and  Corr.  1914:  45-48.  Delinquent.  May,  1914.  pp.  9-11.  American 
Prison  Assn.     1913:    199-211. 

18  Massachusetts  State  Farm  at  Bridgewater.     Annual  reports.     1854 — . 
Massachusetts  State  Board  of  Charity.     Annual  Reports.     1879 — . 

Rhode  Island  Board  of  State  Charities  and  Corrections.  Annual  Reports. 
1869—. 

Indiana  Board  of  State  Charities.     See  Annual  Reports,  1913 — . 

Indiana  Bulletin  of  Charities  and  Correction.     See  numbers  1913 — . 

New  York  Superintendent  of  State  Prisons.  Annual  Report.  See  those  from 
1914  on. 

New  York  State  Commission  of  Prisons.     Annual  Reports,  see  1914 — . 

Prison  Association  of  the  State  of  New  York.     Annual  Reports. 


SUBSTITUTES  FOR  THE  COUNTY  JAIL  SYSTEM  29 

chusetts  State  Farm  was  established  in  1854  as  a  State  Almshouse, 
and  bore  that  title  until  1N72  when  its  name  was  changed  to  State 
Workhouse.  The  present  name  was  given  it  in  1888.  From  1872  it 
has  served  as  a  combined  charitable  and  penal  institution,  becoming 
almost  an  inebriate  asylum. 

In  Rhode  Island  by  the  Act  of  May  28,  1869  (Chapter  814)  there 
were  established  under  the  control  and  management  of  the  Board  of 
State  Charities  and  Corrections,  a  State  Workhouse,  a  House  of 
Correction,  a  State  Asylum  for  the  Incurable  Insane,  and  a  State 
Almshouse,  all  located  on  the  state  farm  at  Cranston.  That  the 
workhouse  was  intended  as  an  institution  for  misdemeanants  appears 
in  the  words  of  the  act: 

Section  6.  All  persons  who  have  actually  abandoned  their  wives  or  children 
without  adequate  support,  leaving  them  in  danger  of  becoming  a  public  charge,  or 
who  may  neglect  to  provide  according  to  their  means,  for  the  support  of  their  wives 
or  children,  or  who  being  habitual  drunkards,  shall  abandon,  neglect  or  refuse  to  aid 
in  the  support  of  their  families;  all  idle  persons,  who  being  of  doubtful  reputation 
and  having  no  visible  means  of  support,  live  without  employment;  all  sturdy  beggars 
who  apply  for  alms,  or  solicit  charity;  all  persons  wandering  abroad,  lodging  in  station 
houses,  outhouses,  market-places,  sheds,  stables,  or  uninhabited  buildings,  or  in  the 
open  air,  and  not  giving  a  good  account  of  themselves;  all  persons  who  go  about 
from  place  to  place  to  beg  or  to  receive  alms;  all  common  prostitutes,  drunkards 
and  night-walkers;  lewd,  wanton,  and  lascivious  persons  in  speech  and  behavior, 
common  railers  and  brawlers;  all  persons  who  neglect  all  lawful  business  and  habitually 
misspend  their  time  by  frequenting  houses  of  ill-fame,  gambling-houses  and  tippling 
shops;  all  common  cheats,  vagrants  or  disorderly  persons;  shall,  on  conviction  of 
either  of  the  aforesaid  offenses  by  a  justice  of  the  peace,  be  sentenced  to  said  State 
Workhouse,  for  a  term  of  not  less  than  six  months  and  not  more  than  three  years. 

There  were  155  committments  to  the  Workhouse  between  July  1 
and  December  31,  1869.  Of  these  there  were:  102  "common  drunk- 
ards," 35  "vagrants,"  14  "common  prostitutes,"  4  guilty  of  "neglect 
to  support  family."  Their  sentences  were  as  follows:  76  for  six 
months,  one  for  eleven  months,  65  for  one  year,  13  for  more  than  one 
year.    The  report  for  1869  goes  on  to  say: 

In  this  connection  it  may  be  well  to  refer  to  a  misapprehension  that  exists  in 
the  minds  of  many  persons  in  relation  to  the  practical  working  and  objects  of  the 
Work  House.  To  those  who  look  upon  the  Work  House  as  a  prison,  and  the  sentences 
to  it  as  punishments  for  offenses  committed,  the  punishments  measured  by  length  of 
time,  seem  out  of  proportion  to  the  offenses.  But  this  is  a  wrong  view  of  the  subject. 
The  Work  House  is  not  a  prison  and  it  is  hoped  that  every  influence  tending  to  make 
it  such  will  be  resisted.     It  was  to  save  men  and  women  from  imprisonment  in  jails 


30  THE  PASSING  OF  THE  COUNTY  JAIL 

and  prisons,  which  has  proved  expensive  and  worse  than  useless  to  all  concerned, 
that  the  Work  House  has  been  established.19 

The  male  prisoners  were  at  once  put  to  work  upon  the  farm  at  road 
building,  laying  foundations  for  new  buildings,  painting  and  carpen- 
tering. The  women  prisoners  did  the  cooking,  washing  and  other 
housework,  as  well  as  sewing  in  making  and  repairing  clothes  for  the 
inmates. 

Recent  reports  show  that  in  the  main  this  institution  has  retained 
its  original  character.  In  1915  the  number  of  new  commitments  was 
720;  578  men  and  142  women;  703  white  and  17  colored;  434  born  in 
the  United  States,  286  foreign-born;  the  offenses  for  which  most  of 
them  were  committed  were:  vagrancy  258,  being  a  common  drunkard 
257;  as  to  occupation  the  largest  single  group  was  laborers,  225;  other 
groups  were  "mill  hands"  136,  "servants"  70,  teamsters  50.  The 
sentences  were  531  for  six  months,  16  for  nine  months,  2  for  eleven 
months,  152  for  a  year,  and  19  for  over  one  year. 

Apparently  the  sole  advantage  which  an  institution  such  as  this 
possesses  over  the  municipal  farm  is  that  it  is  of  service  to  small  com- 
munities. The  sentences  are,  however,  somewhat  longer,  although  we 
have  no  assurance  that  the  length  is  adapted  to  the  specific  needs  of 
individual  misdemeanants. 

The  Indiana  State  Farm  was  created  by  an  act  of  the  1913  legisla- 
ture, and  was  opened  in  April  1915.  The  organic  act  provides  that 
sentences  of  sixty  days  or  over  (for  misdemeanants,  of  course)  must 
be  served  at  the  State  Farm  instead  of  in  county  jails  or  workhouses. 
For  shorter  sentences  the  court  has  the  option  of  the  state  institution 
or  the  local  prison.  The  Farm  is  located  near  Putnamville,  and  occu- 
pies 1603  acres,  of  which  500  were  under  cultivation  in  1917.  The 
maintenance  expenses  are  paid  by  the  state,  transportation  to  the 
Farm  is  paid  by  the  counties,  the  expense  of  returning  a  discharged 
prisoner  to  the  place  of  his  committment  or  to  such  place  equally 
distant  as  he  may  wish  to  go,  is  paid  by  the  state  and  reimbursed  by 
t  he  counties. 

It  is  interesting  to  know  that  since  the  opening  of  the  state  institu- 
tion for  male  misdemeanants,  the  county  jails  of  Indiana  have  begun 
to  serve  their  real  purpose,  the  detention  of  persons  awaiting  trial.    At 

19  R.  I.  Bd.  of  State  Char,  and  Corr.  1869:  26.  The  figures  given  above  and 
the  excerpt  from  the  law  are  taken  from  the  same  report. 


SUBSTITUTES  FOR  THE  COUNTY  JAIL  SYSTEM  31 

the  lime  of  the  1917  inspections  by  the  Board  of  State  Charities  few 
prisoners  were  found  serving  sentences,  and  these  were  for  short  terms. 
Many  jails  were  empty  on  the  day  they  were  inspected.20  Furthermore, 
this  was  accomplished  by  establishing  a  state  institution  with  a  capa- 
city of  only  750,  and  which  had  in  1917  an  average  daily  population  of 
only  671. 

New  York  Stale  opened  a  Farm  for  Women  at  Valatie,  October  1, 
I'M 4,  for  the  reception  of  women  over  thirty  years  of  age  who  had 
been  convicted  at  least  five  times  in  the  two  years  previous  of  a  mis- 
demeanor or  lesser  crime.  The  inmates  were  put  at  farm  work  such  as 
planting,  weeding,  picking  fruit,  etc.  They  also  made  practically  all 
of  the  clothing  used.  The  Farm  has  not,  however,  been  of  service  to 
very  many  women,  the  number  of  inmates  almost  never  exceeding 
fifty.  In  December  1918,  the  institution  was  turned  over  to  the 
State  Department  of  Health  for  the  accomodation,  treatment  and 
isolation  of  female  patients.21 

In  addition  to  institutions  devoted  to  all  sorts  of  petty  offenders 
there  has  been  evolved  a  certain  degree  of  specialization  in  dealing 
with  limited  groups,  such  as  vagrants,  inebriates,  and  prostitutes. 
Switzerland  and  Belgium  appear  to  have  been  more  successful  than 
other  countries  in  dealing  with  vagrants  and  beggars.  In  certain  of  the 
Swiss  cantons  laws  regarding  vagrancy — 

begin  by  separating  the  genuine  unemployed  from  the  thieves,  loafers,  and  ne'er-do- 
wells  who  render  this  question  so  complicated  in  America.  This  is  done  by  a  system 
of  travelers'  relief  books,  issued  by  the  Swiss  Intercantonal  Union,  which  includes 
fourteen  out  of  the  twenty-two  cantons  of  which  Switzerland  is  composed.  This 
travelers'  relief  book  sets  forth  all  the  facts  necessary  to  identify  and  certify  to  the 
good  faith  of  its  owner,  and  the  possession  of  this  book  is  sufficient  to  permit  its 
owner  to  travel  through  the  fourteen  cantons  above  mentioned  without  any  work 
whatever  being  exacted  from  him.     .     .     . 

The  Swiss  have  established: 

Two  kinds  of  labor  colonies,  essentially  different  from  one  another:  the  so-called 
forced  labor  colonies  or  Zwansgarbcits-Anstalten  to  which  are  committed  all  culpable 
vagrants;  and  free  labor  colonies,  the  doors  of  which  are  open  to  all  indigent  persons 
who  are  not  culpable.     .     .     . 

The  colony  at  Witzwyl  is  a  forced  labor  colony  instituted  by  the  canton  of  Berne. 
The  colony  at  Tannenhof  is  a  free  labor  colony  started  by  individual  philanthropists. 

20  Indiana  Bulletin  of  Charities  and  Correction.  Mar.,  1913.  pp.  30-34. 
Indiana  Board  of  State  Charities.     Report.     1917:    73,146. 

21  Letter  from  Secretary,  State  Commission  of  Prisons.     Jan.  24,  1919. 


32  THE  PASSING  OF  THE  COUNTY  JAIL 

The  two  colonies  had  separate  directors  until  the  increasing  expense  of  Tannenhof 
and  the  diminishing  expense  of  Witzwyl  induced  the  board  of  directors  of  the  Tannen- 
hof institution  to  offer  the  directorship  of  the  Tannenhof  colony  to  Mr.  Otto  Kellerhals, 
who  had  succeeded  in  making  the  colony  of  Witzwyl  self-supporting.  They  are 
now,  therefore,  both  under  the  same  direction.     .     .     P 

There  have  sprung  up  around  Witzwyl  a  number  of  small  colonies 
to  which  able-bodied  inmates  can  be  sent  after  expiration  of  their 
term  and  where  they  can  be  at  once  employed  at  a  fair  salary,  removed 
from  the  temptation  to  drink,  enabled  to  save  a  little  money  and 
gradually  prepared  for  competition  in  the  open  labor  market.  They 
sign  a  contract  to  remain  for  a  fixed  term  in  the  free  colony.  These 
free  colonies  are  also  havens  to  which  the  men  may  later  return  in  time 
of  unemployment  or  other  misfortune.23 

To  deal  with  the  same  general  groups  of  vagrants  and  beggars 
Belgium  had  before  the  war  four  poor-houses  and  two  work-houses.24 
The  system  is  thus  described  by  Binder: 

1.  The  workhouses  are  intended  for  individuals  who  shun  work  and  try  to  find 
a  living  by  exploiting  charity;  for  those  who  have  become  homeless  owing  to  laziness, 
intemperance,  shiftlessness  and  immorality;  finally,  for  those  who  become  a  public 
danger  by  keeping  houses  of  prostitution.  The  poorhouses  are  intended  for  unfortu- 
nate persons  who  for  one  reason  or  another  are  unable  to  make  a  living,  chiefly  those 
in  poor  health,  advanced  age,  or  in  hard  luck. 

2.  In  every  case  the  question  of  being  sent  to  one  of  the  two  kinds  of  institu- 
tions must  be  submitted  to  a  judge  or  justice  of  the  peace.  The  court  must  verify 
the  identity,  age,  physical  and  mental  condition,  antecedents  and  especially  the 
police  record  of  the  individual.  In  order  to  assist  the  judge  in  getting  all  the  facts 
in  the  case  of  an  individual  not  sufficiently  known  in  the  locality  where  he  or  she  is 
apprehended,  the  department  of  justice  at  Brussels  renders  all  possible  aid.  The 
decision  of  the  court  is  final  and  cannot  be  appealed  from  except  in  the  case  of  "white 
slavers." 

3.  If  the  sentence  is  too  severe,  the  Minister  of  Justice  may  be  asked  to  modify 
it  or  pardon  the  culprit;  if  too  light,  a  corrective  is  found  in  having  the  parties  either 
expelled  from  the  poorhouse,  if  their  presence  should  be  morally  dangerous  to  the 
inmates,  or  by  having  them  resentenced  by  the  Minister  of  Justice  to  the  workhouse. 


"Kelly,  Edmund:  "The  Elimination  of  the  Tramp."  New  York.  1908. 
pp.  24,  25,  29,  34. 

"Fetter,  Frank  A.:    "Witzwil  a  Successful  Penal  Farm."     Survey  25:  760-766. 

M  Binder,  Rudolph  M.:  "The  Treatment  of  Beggars  and  Vagabonds  in  Belgium." 
Journal  of  Criminal  Law.     6:  835-848. 

Van  Schellc,  A.  F.:  "A  City  of  Vagabonds.  The  Largest  Colony  of  Mendicants 
in  the  World,  Merxplas,  Belgium."     American  Journal  of  Sociology.     16:  1-20. 


SUBSTITUTES  FOR  THE  COUNTY  JAIL  SYSTEM  33 

4.  No  person  under  IX  years  is  to  be  sent  to  a  poorhouse  or  workhouse;  persons 
between  bS  and  21  years  of  age  in  those  institutions  must  be  kept  separate  from  older 
inmates. 

Sentences  to  the  poorhouse  are  for  one  year  or  less,  to  the  workhouse  for  two 
years  or  more. 

6.  Admission  to  the  workhouse  is  by  judicial  process  alone;  to  the  poorhouse 
(1)  by  voluntary  application  to  the  mayor  and  aldermen  of  a  commune,  (2)  by  direct 
demand  of  the  mayor  and  aldermen,  (3)  by  judicial  procedure. 

7.  The  expense  of  parties  sent  to  the  poorhouse  on  the  request  of  a  commune 
are  charged  to  it  in  their  entirety;  expenses  of  inmates  of  workhouses  and  poorhouses 
sentenced  by  a  judge  are  divided  equally  between  the  commune,  the  province,  and 
the  State.  The  expenses  for  "white  slavers"  must  be  borne  by  the  commune  in 
which  they  plied  their  trade. 

8.  Every  healthy  inmate  of  a  poorhouse  and  workhouse  is  obliged  to  work, 
but  is  legally  entitled  to  pay  fixed  by  the  Minister  of  Justice  for  the  particular  work 
he  does. 

9.  Discharge  from  the  poorhouse  must,  according  to  law,  invariably  take 
place  at  the  end  of  one  year.  Release  may  be  granted  before  if  the  Minister  of 
Justice  concludes  from  the  report  of  the  director  that  confinement  has  served  its 
purpose,  or  when  the  savings  accumulated  by  the  inmate  amount  to  15  francs,  or 
when  regular  work  is  found  for  him,  provided  the  savings  amount  to  15  francs,  since 
no  inmate  should  be  set  at  liberty  when  he  cannot  find  work  at  his  trade.     .     .     . 

A  special  bureau  examines  all  requests  for  pardon,  and  deals  on  an  average  with 
10,000  petitions  per  year,  coming  from  approximately  6,000  individuals.  Nothing 
is  left  undone  to  avoid  an  infringement  of  individual  liberty  of  deserving  persons. 

A  voluntary  board  of  visitors  forms  another  safeguard  against  any  possible 
injustice.  The  members  visit  in  turn  and  biweekly  the  institutions  to  which  they 
are  assigned,  hear  petitions,  examine  the  reports  and  conduct  of  prisoners,  and 
endorse  the  requests  for  clemency  if  they  see  a  good  reason  for  doing  so.  The  visiting 
board  for  Merxplas-Wortel  consists  of  fifteen  members,  and  of  six  members  for  each 
of  the  other  institutions.  They  have  the  advantage  of  coming  in  personal  contact 
with  the  petitioners  and  examining  records  on  the  ground. 

Each  of  the  colonies  has  shops;  two  of  them  have  farms.  Every 
inmate,  unless  sick,  is  required  to  work  and  is  assigned  so  far  as  possi- 
ble in  accordance  with  his  strength,  aptitude  and  previous  training. 
Inmates  have  erected  buildings  and  assembled  machinery.  At 
Hoogstraeten  there  is  a  brewery  and  malstery,  flour  mills,  bakery  and 
soap  factory;  carpenter,  cobbler,  shoe-maker  and  locksmith  shops; 
and  gas  works.  At  Merxplas  the  shops  provide  brick  and  tile  making, 
tinning,  weaving,  tailoring,  smithing,  carpentering,  boot  and  shoe 
making,  foundry  work,  charcoal  burning,  plumbing,  etc.  Among  the 
field  crops  raised  are:  oats,  barley  rye,  carrots,  potatoes,  chicory, 
tobacco,  flax,  hemp,  legumes.  Wages  are  paid  in  accordance  with 
ability,  experience  and  kind  of  work.    They  vary  in  the  poor-houses 


34  THE  PASSING  OF  THE  COUNTY  JAIL 

from  9  to  71  centimes  per  day,  and  in  the  workhouses  from  3  to  25 
centimes.  A  canteen  is  maintained,  but  this  does  not  prevent  saving 
for  a  part  of  the  wages  is  kept  back  until  the  time  of  release. 

The  only  thing  in  the  United  States  comparable  to  the  Swiss  and 
Belgian  institutions  for  vagrants  and  beggars  is  the  New  York  State 
Industrial  Farm  Colony.  In  January  1913  the  State  took  title  to  821 
acres  of  fertile  farm  land,  situated  in  the  town  of  Beekman,  Dutchess 
County,  for  the  purpose  of  erecting  and  maintaining  thereon  a  colony 
for  tramps  and  vagrants.  Since  then  no  progress  has  been  made 
toward  the  construction  of  buildings.  Several  causes  have  contri- 
buted to  the  delay  Primarily  there  has  been  the  legislative  argument 
of  "economy,"  insisting  that  existing  institutions  should  be  properly 
supported  before  new  ones  are  launched.25 

In  the  United  States  more  has  been  done  toward  specialized  care 
for  inebriates — alcohol  and  drug  addicts.  In  California,  for  example, 
they  may  be  committed  to  the  state  hospitals,  which  are  primarily 
for  the  insane.  Under  Section  2185c  of  the  Political  Code,  they  may 
be  committed  for  a  definite  period  not  to  exceed  two  years  and  sub- 
ject to  parole  at  the  discretion  of  the  superintendent  of  the  institu- 
tion. On  June  30,  1916  there  were  562  such  persons  in  the  California 
state  hospitals,  and  844  were  admitted  during  the  year  ending  that 
date.26 

There  the  alcoholics  have  the  benefit  of  a  little  hydrotherapy  and 
other  eliminative  measures,  but  this  is  of  short  duration  and  is  not 
followed  up  by  the  necessary  training,  employment  and  supervision. 
The  liquor  cases  are  put  on  the  same  wards  with  "mental"  cases  to 
the  chagrin  of  the  former  and  the  annoyance  of  the  latter.  There  is 
not  enough  work  for  them  to  do  and  conditions  are  not  such  that  they 
can  be  employed  very  generally.  They  require  a  great  deal  of  super- 
vision and  the  attendants  cannot  be  spared  from  their  regular  duties 
of  looking  after  the  insane.  In  addition,  the  alcoholics  cause  much 
disturbance  on  the  wards  and  their  presence  is  resented  by  some  of 
the  insane. 

In  the  Napa  State  Hospital  drug  addicts  are  given  the  Towns- 
Lambert  treatment.  But  hydrotherapy  is  more  generally  used.  The 
packs  and  sprays  arc  most  employed,  although  some  patients  are 
given  continuous  baths.     All  are,  of  course,  eliminative,  stimulating 

2,1  Seventy-first  Annual  Report.     Prison  Association  of  New  York.     1:  102. 
M  Cal.  State  Bd.  of  Char,  and  Corr.     1916:  46. 


SUBSTITUTES  FOR  THE  COUNTY  JAIL  SYSTEM  35 

secretions  and  carrying  off  poisons  through  the  skin.  Electro-cabinets 
and  vibrators  are  also  used.  Massage  and  shampoo  are  found  helpful 
for  some  patients.  Hyoscin  is  not  generally  used,  neither  is  gradual 
withdrawal  much  practised,  the  theory  apparently  being  that  both 
hamper  the  development  of  will  power.  After  this  preliminary 
treatment  the  drug  cases  are  transferred  to  the  regular  wards  with  the 
same  general  results  as  in  the  case  of  alcoholics.  The  argument  in 
favor  of  this  system  is  that  many  of  the  alcohol  and  drug  habitues 
are  suffering  from  some  nervous  (or  mental)  disease. 

Similar  state  hospital  treatment  is  available  for  a  limited  number 
of  inebriates  in  Illinois,  Minnesota,  North  Carolina  and  Massachu- 
setts.27 In  New  York  City  care  is  provided  in  Bellevue,  Metropolitan 
and  Kings  County  Hospitals.28 

The  Massachusetts  State  Farm  at  Bridgewater,  which  was  started 
as  a  mixed  institution  and  has  remained  more  or  less  that  to  the 
present  day,  is,  however,  primarily  a  place  for  the  care  and  detention 
of  inebriates.  Just  when  special  attention  began  to  be  given  this 
group  does  not  appear,  but  we  read  in  the  report  for  1873:  "We  do 
not  hesitate  to  attribute  nine-tenths  of  the  commitments  here  to 
intemperance  directly  or  indirectly."  In  1892  the  superintendent 
reported:  "The  increase  of  population  has  been  principally  in  the 
workhouse  department,  through  commitments  for  drunkenness,  and 
is  probably  accounted  for  in  the  new  drunk  law.  .  .  .  The  large 
number  of  men  committed  under  the  drunk  law,  together  with  the 
class  of  vagrants  just  referred  to,  if  accounted  drunkards,  seems  to 
make  the  workhouse  department  what  I  think  it  should  be — an  institu- 
tion for  the  care  and  detention  of  cases  of  drunkenness,  rather  than  a 
receptacle  for  everybody  who  is  not  wanted  elsewhere."  In  1914,  of 
the  4321  new  commitments,  3613  were  for  drunkenness.29 

In  1904  Iowa  established  a  State  Hospital  for  Inebriates  at  Knox- 
ville,  30  miles  from  Des  Moines.30  Although  this  is  a  more  specialized 
institution  than  the  Massachussetts  State  Farm,  and  hence  possesses 

27  Summaries  of  State  Laws.  Compiled  by  Dallas  Civic  Federation.  1918.  pp. 
72-73. 

28  Weber,  Joseph  J. :  "Handbook  on  the  Care  and  Treatment  of  Alcoholic  and 
Drug  Addicts  in  New  York  City."     1917.     pp.  5-7. 

29  Massachusetts  State  Farm.  Annual  Reports.  1854 — .  Massachusetts  State 
Board  of  Charity.     Annual  Reports.     1879 — . 

30  Iowa  State  Hospital  for  Inebriates.  Biennial  Reports.  1906 — .  Iowa  State 
Board  of  Control.     See  Biennial  Reports.     1908—. 


36  THE  PASSING  OF  THE  COUNTY  JAIL 

great  possibilities,  it  started  without  adequate  hospital  facilities  and 
without  sufficient  means  of  employing  the  patients.  It  has,  however, 
two  noteworthy  featues.  One  is  that  the  patients  who  have  been  in 
the  hospital  90  days  may  be  employed  at  the  brick  and  tile  plant, 
receiving  $1.00  per  day  for  their  work.  The  other  is  a  parole  system 
allowing  the  superintendent  to  parole  into  the  custody  of  responsible 
persons  patients  whom  he  might  not  want  to  certify  as  being  cured. 
The  population  of  this  institution  has  never  been  large;  in  fact,  it 
decreased  from  207  in  1915  to  141  in  1916.  This  is  attributed  by  the 
Board  of  Control  to  the  Harrison  Law  and  its  enforcement. 

A  similar  institution  known  as  the  New  York  City  Hospital  and 
Industrial  Colony  was  started  in  1912  by  the  purchase  of  some  700 
acres  of  land  near  Warwick,  Orange  County.31  Weber  describes  the 
colony  thus: 

Cases  are  admitted  by  commitment  after  application  to  the  Executive  Secretary 
ofthe  Board  of  Inebriety.  Drug  addicts  are  committed  by  the  courts.  If  discharged 
from  the  Colony  before  the  expiration  of  the  maximum  term  for  which  alcoholics 
may  be  committed,  namely,  three  years,  the  patient  is  placed  in  the  care  of  a  field 
officer  and  remains  under  his  supervision  until  the  Board  considers  that  he  may  be 
safely  released,  or  until  the  expiration  of  the  maximum  term. 

Each  patient  receives  a  careful  physical  and  mental  examination.  Based  on 
the  data  thus  gathered,  an  effort  is  made  to  improve  physical  defects  by  hygienic 
measures,  refraining,  as  far  as  possible,  from  medicinal  measures.  The  individual 
patient  is  thereby  given  an  opportunity  to  learn  what  the  normal  is  for  him,  and  is 
taught  not  to  lean  upon  props  in  the  shape  of  medicine  and  tonics.     .     .     . 

When  discharged  from  the  Farm  Colony,  the  patient  is  placed,  as  far  as  possible, 
in  employment  away  from  his  old  environment,  in  a  community  the  ideals  of  which 
approximate  those  of  the  farm  community.  Field  officers  keep  in  touch  with  him 
for  a  period  when  necessary  in  order  to  advise  and  encourage. 

We  have  considered  special  methods  of  caring  for  two  of  the 
largest  groups  of  misdemeanants — vagrants  and  alcoholics — we  shall 
speak  rather  briefly  of  two  smaller  groups — prostitutes  and  family 
deserters.  In  connection  with  state  reformatories  for  women  and 
municipal  farms,  something  far  better  than  the  county  jail  can  offer 
is  being  done  for  prostitutes.  But  the  only  specialized  institutions  in 
the  United  States  appear  to  be  those  maintained  by  the  various  state 
and  federal  commissions  called  into  being  by  the  war  and  a  few  pri- 
vate institutions.  Because  it  has  been  operating  for  some  time  and 
its  methods  are  pretty  definitely  established,  let  us  take  Waverly 

"Delinquent.     April, -1915.     pp.  10-13.     Weber:   op.  cit.     pp.  5-6. 


SUBSTITUTES  FOR  THE  COUNTY  JAIL  SYSTEM  37 

House,  New  York,  as  a  sample  of  the  best  work  being  done  in   this 

field. 

Each  young  woman  who  comes  to  us  has  her  own  problems  and  needs  quite 
distinct  from  those  facing  any  other  girl.  Different  forces  have  contributed  toward 
her  delinquency,  and  varied  influences  have  been  responsible  for  her  continuance 
in  an  immoral  life.  Understanding  of  her  mental  and  physical  condition,  her  home 
environment,  her  education,  and  knowledge  of  an)'  work,  or  trade,  aids  us  in  deter- 
mining a  plan  for  helping  her.  The  first  step  is  to  hear  her  story,  then  to  verify  it  by 
thorough  investigation.  A  physical  and  mental  examination  is  given  each  girl.  As 
a  result  of  such  observation,  examination,  and  investigation,  we  have  information 
which  enables  us  to  decide  the  best  disposition  in  the  case  of  each  individual.32 

While  at  Waverly  House  the  girls  receive  some  training  for  useful 
work  and  stimulation  to  desire  an  honest  living.  They  are  kept 
occupied  as  much  as  possible.  Music,  "talks,"  gymnastics,  walks, 
rides  and  religious  services  are  a  part  of  their  program.  When  they 
leave  Waverly  House,  the  girls  may  be  placed  on  probation,  sentenced 
to  a  reformatory,  or  sent  to  a  custodial  institution  for  the  insane  or 
feebleminded.  All  women  requiring  medical  care  are  sent  directly  to  a 
hospital  for  treatment.  Those  needing  convalescent  care  are  sent  to 
the  country  to  recuperate.  Provision  is  made  for  girls  having  suitable 
homes  to  return  to  them.  Positions  are  found  for  those  who  are  able 
to  work.  Great  care  is  taken  to  know  that  the  relatives  or  friends  to 
whom  the  girls  go  are  able  to  help  them;  that  places  of  employment 
are  adapted  to  their  abilities,  and  afford  a  protected  environment. 
Thus  the  treatment  and  care  at  Waverly  House  are  definitely  indivi- 
dualized. The  institution  is  practically  a  clearing  house  for  "fallen 
women." 

Family  deserters  are  dealt  with  in  a  great  variety  of  ways.  The 
first  problem  is  to  secure  a  warrant  for  their  arrest;  their  location  and 
apprehension  are  frequently  very  difficult;  return  to  jurisdiction,  in 
case  they  have  left  the  state  is  even  harder;  and  after  they  have  been 
brought  back  and  convicted,  we  face  the  greatest  problem  of  all. 
Frequently  they  are  imprisoned,  with  the  economic  waste  of  the  man 
idling  in  jail  at  the  expense  of  the  county  while  his  family  depends 
upon  the  charities.  If  he  is  fined,  the  penalty  is  apt  to  fall  still  more 
heavily  upon  the  family.  The  work  that  is  undertaken  by  courts 
of  domestic  relations  and  by  many  relief  agencies  is  to  effect  recon- 
ciliation where  this  is  possible,  or  to  secure  support  of  wife  and  chil- 

32  Miner,  Maude  E.:    "The  Slavery  of  Prostitution."     p.  165. 


219638 


38  THE  PASSING  OF  THE  COUNTY  JAIL 

dren  without  return  of  the  husband,  or  to  break  up  families  by  separa- 
tion or  divorce  where  that  seems  wise.  Individualization  within  the 
limits  of  legal  and  financial  resources  is  the  essence  of  the  most  suc- 
cessful methods  used  in  dealing  with  family  deserters.33 

In  concluding  this  chapter,  we  may  well  consider  programs  for  the 
future  care  of  misdemeanants.  A  number  of  schemes  have  been 
projected.  They  include  some  features  already  in  operation  here  and 
there,  and  some  ideas  drawn  from  the  fields  of  social  case  work  and 
clinical  psychology.  It  should  be  noted  in  passing  that  in  the  various 
systems  we  have  reviewed  three  fundamental  defects  remain:  (1)  the 
relatively  fixed  and  short  sentence,  (2)  lack  of  facilities  for  courts  to 
learn  the  real  personal  needs  of  each  offender,  (3)  relative  uniformity 
of  treatment  within  the  institutions,  i.e.,  lack  of  individualization. 

There  are  many  proposals  relating  to  details  of  the  county  jail 
system,  such  as  jail  architecture,  sanitation,  outdoor  work,  etc.34 
Among  the  various  sorts  of  people  included  among  the  misdemean- 
ants, the  vagrants  seem  to  have  received  more  attention  from  the 
"reformers"  than  any  other  group.35  Nearly  all  of  these  programs 
agree  in  urging  the  labor  colony  system  already  operative  in  Switzer- 
land and  Belgium. 

Two  more  general  programs  deserve  special  attention.  The 
committee  on  corrections  of  the  National  Conference  of  Charities 
and  Correction  in  1914  outlined  a  plan  which  Amos  W.  Butler  sum- 
marized as  follows:36 

1.  A  system  of  police  recognizing  character,  merit  and  efficiency  in  the  personnel 
and  a  proper  social  view  for  its  operations. 

2.  A  prompt  hearing  for  every  person  arrested. 

3.  The  establishment  of  juvenile  courts  for  all  children's  cases. 


39  Eubank,  E.  E. :  "A  Study  of  Family  Desertion."  Chicago.  1916.  Brandt, 
Lilian:  "Five  Hundred  and  Seventy-four  Deserters  and  Their  Families."  New 
York.     1905. 

34  Zimmerman,  W.  C:  "Modern  Jail  Architecture."  Jour.  Crim.  Law.  6: 
717-723. 

Dowling,  Oscar:  "The  Hygiene  of  Jails,  Lock-ups  and  Police  Stations."  Jour. 
Crim.  Law.     5:  695-703. 

Henderson,  Chas.  R.:    "Outdoor  Labor  for  Convicts."     Chicago,     1907. 

36  Actes  du  Congres  Pgnitcntiare  Internationale  de  Washington.  1910.  1:  183-207. 

Lewis,  O.  F.:    "Vagrancy  in  the  United  States."     New  York.     1907. 

Kelly,  Edmund:  "The  Elimination  of  the  Tramp."     New  York.     1908. 

«  National  Conf.  of  Char,  and  Corr.     1914:  21-26. 


SUBSTITUTES  FOR  THE  COUNTY  JAIL  SYSTEM  39 

4.  Provision  for  the  care  and  detention  of  delinquent  children  outside  the  jail. 

5.  A  probation  system  for  adults  similar  to  that  of  juvenile  courts. 

6.  Separate  trials  for  women  offenders. 

7.  A  modification  of  the  present  system  of  fines  in  order  not  to  discriminate 
against  the  poor. 

8.  Classification  of  prisoners,  confinement  of  individuals  apart  from  each  other 
and  absolute  sex  separation  in  county  jails. 

9.  The  prohibition  of  the  use  of  the  jail  for  any  other  purpose  than  that  of 
detention. 

10.  The  abolition  of  the  fee  system. 

11.  State  control  of  all  minor  prisons. 

12.  The  establishment  of  industrial  farms  for  convicted  misdemeanants. 

13.  A  form  of  indeterminate  sentence  for  misdemeanants. 

14.  Their  release  on  parole  under  supervision. 

15.  The  abolition  of  contract  labor. 

In  1915  at  the  meeting  of  the  American  Prison  Association  in 
Oakland  the  committee  on  jails,  lock-ups  and  police  stations  made  a 
rather  comprehensive  report  of  which  the  following  is  an  outline.37 

I.     Methods  involving  a  change  in  the  plan  of  incarceration 
(o)     State  penal  farms 

(b)  Payments  to  prisoners  in  the  nature  of  wages 

(c)  Revision  of  sentences 

(d)  Habitual  offender  acts 

(e)  Educational  work  and  mental  examination 

II.     Methods  involving  conditional  liberation  under  supervision 

(a)  Adult  probation 

(b)  Parole 

(c)  Outdoor  work  for  local  prisoners 

(d)  Employment  of  prisoners  without  guards,  an  aspect  of  the  so-called 

honor  system 

(e)  Restitution 

(/)     Change  in  system  of  commitment  for  fines 
III.     Rehabilitation  of  the  offender 

(a)     Special  treatment  of  special  classes 

(6)     Cooperation  with  community  agencies 

(c)     Case  work 
IV.     Improvement  in  the  process  preliminary  to  conviction 

(a)  Psychopathic  study 

(b)  Reforms  in  legal  procedure  and  police  administration 
V.     Supervision 

(a)  State  supervision  and  control 

(b)  Statistics 


17  American  Prison  Association.     1915:  363-378. 


40  THE  PASSING  OF  THE  COUNTY  JAIL 

In  view  of  what  seems  to  be  a  very  definite  tendency  toward 
individualization,  two  features  of  this  last  program  are  worthy  of 
special  notice:  revision  of  sentences  and  case  work.  As  to  the  former, 
the  report  says: 

The  principle  of  systematic  revision  of  sentences  on  the  basis  of  a  more  complete 
knowledge  of  the  criminal  and  his  action  subsequent  to  conviction  has  been  established 
through  the  success  of  the  indeterminate  sentence  acts.  A  very  considerable  propor- 
tion of  prisoners  now  in  penal  institutions  are  serving  indeterminate  sentences.  The 
indeterminate  sentence  now  applies  to  persons  committed  to  the  New  York  City 
workhouse,  penitentiary  and  reformatory,  and  a  general  extension  of  this  important 
principle  to  the  misdemeanant  class  may  be  expected. 

In  regard  to  case  work,  it  states: 

One  of  the  greatest  contributions  made  to  the  science  of  social  betterment  is  the 
method  of  case  work  developed  in  the  charity  organization  societies.  Whatever  be 
the  nature  of  the  maladjustment  through  which  the  offender  is  finally  committed  to 
prison,  the  prime  need  is  for  some  agency  to  undertake  and  to  see  through  to  the 
end  the  process  of  his  rehabilitation.  Whether  as  leader  or  as  cooperator,  the  penal 
institution  ought  definitely  to  take  part  in  this  process. 

Apparently  we  seem  justified  in  concluding  that  there  are  already 
established  better  ways  of  handling  misdemeanants  than  the  county  jail 
system.  Moreover,  these  innovations — some  of  them  are  not  so  very 
new — seem  to  indicate  a  movement  in  the  direction  of  making  the 
treatment  fit  the  needs  of  the  individual  offender.  Admittedly  we  are  as 
yet  far  from  thorough-going  individualization,  but  there  appears  to  be 
a  pretty  definite  tendency  toward  that  as  a  goal. 


CHAPTER  III 


Inmates  of  County  Jails  and  Other  Misdemeanants 

Perhaps  it  would  have  been  more  "logical"  to  describe  first  the 
offenders  and  then  the  treatment  which  is  applied.  But  it  has  been 
more  convenient  to  get  a  clear  picture  of  the  county  jail  system  before 
studying  its  victims  very  closely.  At  any  rate  that  is  the  way  we 
actually  proceeded  in  working  at  the  problem. 

In  the  previous  chapter  we  were  content  to  accept  the  popular 
assumption  that  everybody  knows  who  the  inmates  of  county  jails 
are.  But  we  cannot  go  much  farther  without  a  pretty  exact  notion  of 
these  folks.  The  vague  generalizations  about  petty  offenders  or 
misdemeanants  do  not  afford  an  adequate  basis  for  criticizing  the 
correctional  system.  Just  who,  then,  are  the  people  that  get  into 
jail?    The  following  tables  begin  to  define  them. 

General  Classification  of  Prisoners  Received  in  California  County  Jails 

19141 
Charged  with  misdemeanors: 

Not  convicted 9,691 

Convicted 11,017        20,708 


Charged  with  felonies  and  United  States  prisoners 8,459 

Not  charged  with  any  offense 2,405 


Total 31,572 

Classification  of  Prisoners  in  California  County  Jails  at  Specified  Dates2 


Date 


Dec.  31,  1914. 
June  30,  1915. 
Dec.  31,  1914. 
June  30,  1916. 
June  30,  1917 . 
June  30,  1918. 


Serving 

Awaiting 

Sen- 

Totals 

Trial 

tence 

2,121 

808 

1,221 

1,717 

596 

1,060 

1,962 

754 

1,095 

1,590 

551 

925 

1,306 

571 

676 

1,560 

907 

603 

Sentenc'd  and 

Awaiting 
Transporta- 
tion to 


State 

Ref'rm 

Prison 

School 

60 

7 

29 

2 

85 

7 

26 

4 

25 

3 

19 

1 

All 
others 


25 
30 
21 
84 
31 
30 


1  A  Study  in  County  Jails  in  California,     p.  25. 

1  California  State  Board  of  Char,  and  Corr.     1916:  97. 

41 


1918:  100-101. 


42  THE  PASSING  OF  THE  COUNTY  JAIL 

i 

These  figures  show  that  a  large  proportion  of  county  jail  prisoners 
are  people  serving  sentences  under  conviction  of  misdemeanor. 
Another  large  group  consists  of  those  charged  with  misdemeanors 
and  awaiting  trial.  Many  of  these  are  never  found  guilty.  The  rest 
of  the  jail  population  is  made  up  of  (1)  persons  charged  with  felonies, 
(2)  convicted  of  felonies  and  awaiting  transportation  to  a  state 
prison,  (3)  wards  of  the  juvenile  court  awaiting  transportation  to  a 
"reform  school,"  (4)  persons  against  whom  no  charge  has  been  pre- 
ferred, including  "lodgers,"  "drunks"  sleeping  off  the  effects  of  a 
carousal,  "suspects"  and  insane — a  pretty  motley  crowd. 

Because  the  misdemeanor  group  is  decidedly  the  largest  we  shall 
devote  most  of  our  attention  to  it.  First  of  all,  we  need  to  make  sure 
that  we  know  who  misdemeanants  are.  We  talk  glibly  of  them  as 
though  we  are  dealing  with  a  well  defined  type.  But  are  we  justified  in 
this  naive  assumption? 

Perhaps  the  easiest  way  to  get  at  this  problem  is  through  a  legal 
definition.  A  misdemeanant  is  a  person  who  has  been  found  guilty  of 
of  a  misdemeanor.  How  simple!  But  what  is  a  misdemeanor?  The 
Statutes  of  Illinois  state  it  thus:3 

A  felony  is  an  offense  punishable  with  death  or  by  imprisonment  in  the 
penitentiary. 

Every  other  offense  is  a  misdemeanor. 

The  Penal  Code  of  California  offers  a  definition  that  is  almost 
identical.4 

A  felony  is  a  crime  which  is  punishable  with  death  or  by  imprisonment  in  the 
state  prison.  Every  other  crime  is  a  misdemeanor.  When  a  crime,  punishable  by 
imprisonment  in  the  state  prison  is  also  punishable  by  fine  or  imprisonment  in  a 
county  jail,  in  the  discretion  of  the  court,  it  shall  be  deemed  a  misdemeanor  for  all 
purposes  after  a  judgment  imposing  a  punishment  other  than  imprisonment  in  the 
state  prison. 

These  are  typical  legal  definitions,  not  very  satisfactory,  perhaps, 
but  about  the  only  thing  available.  However,  we  can  make  these 
statements  more  concrete  in  two  ways:  (1)  we  can  go  through  the 
codes  and  pick  out  the  offenses  listed  as  misdemeanors,  or  (2)  we  can 
find  out  what  offenses  have  been  committed  by  people  who  serve  jail 
sentences.    The  latter  method  appears  to  be  more  worth  our  while, 

» Hurd's  Revised  Statutes.     1917.     Chap.  38,  Sec.  277-278. 
1  Deering's  Penal  Code.     1909.     Sec.  17. 


INMATES  OF  COUNTY  JAILS  AND  OTHER  MISDEMEANANTS 


43 


for  it  is  likely  that  many  sections  of  our  penal  codes  are  not  regularly 
enforced,  and  perhaps  some  are  not  violated. 

In  a  study  in  county  jails  in  California  in  19156  the  offenses  for 
which  people  were  sentenced  most  frequently  to  county  jails  were: 
vagrancy,  drunkenness,  disturbing  the  peace  and  petit  larceny. 
The  folllwing  table  shows  the  numbers  in  detail  for  each  of  thirty 
offenses. 

Offenses  of  Misdemeanants  in  California  County  Jails,  1914 


Vagrancy 2,893 

Disturbing  the  peace 1,937 

Petit  larceny 1,498 

Drunk 1,242 

Begging 372 

Beating  railroad 371 

Battery 289 

Assault 197 

Liquor  laws 151 

Concealed  weapons 105 

Malicious  mischief 80 

Defrauding  innkeeper 77 

Failure  to  provide 74 

Indecent  exposure 49 

Passing  fictitious  check 45 

Obtaining  money  under  false  pre- 

pretenses 36 

Total  convicted  of  misdemeanors . . . 


Embezzlement 34 

Contempt  of  court 31 

Fish  and  game  laws 31 

Liquor  laws 24 

Cruelty  to  animals 24 

Gambling 18 

Resisting  an  officer 13 

Threat  to  kill 10 

Prostitution 10 

Auto  laws 9 

Discharging  firearms 8 

Fast  driving 5 

Lottery 3 

City   and   county   ordinances  not 

specified 52 

Misdemeanors  not  specified 1,336 


11,024 


This  gives  a  representative  list  of  the  principal  offenses  included 
in  the  general  category  of  misdemeanors.6  It  is  suggestive,  but  does 
not  define  our  group  at  all  exactly.  As  we  shall  see  later,  misde- 
meanants are  not  capable  of  precise  definition  in  terms  of  offenses 
committed.  But  perhaps  we  will  have  better  prospects  of  success,  if 
we  seek  information  about  the  misdemeanants  themselves  as  human 
beings.    As  a  matter  of  fact  it  is  possible  to  assemble  data  concerning 

6  A  Study  in  County  Jails  in  California.     Bulletin  of  the  State  Board  of  Charities 
and  Corrections.     1916.    This  study  was  made  by  the  present  author. 
4  For  similar  lists  of  offenses  see: 
New  York  City  Department  of  Correction.     1915: 65-72. 
Kansas  City  Board  of  Public  Welfare.     1914:  120. 
Rhode  Island  Board  of  State  Charities  and  Corrections.     1915:  90. 
Chicago  House  of  Correction.     1915. 
Allegheny  County  (Pittsburg)  Workhouse.     1916:  47. 
Journal  of  Criminal  Law.     8:  861. 
National  Conference  of  Social  Work.     1918:  134. 


44 


THE  PASSING  OF  THE  COUNTY  JAIL 


their  age,  sex,  birthplace,  race,  marital  condition,  occupation,  previous 
experience  in  prison,  mental  and  physical  condition.  By  way  of 
caution,  however,  we  must  be  on  the  lookout  for  possible  inaccuracies, 
and  see  whether  the  character  of  the  data  and  the  methods  of  investi- 
gation justify  the  conclusions  which  we  attempt  to  draw. 

Sex  of  Misdemeanants7 


Institutions 


California  County  Jails: 

Received  in  1914.  .  . 

In  jail,  12-31-14 

6-30-15 .  .  .  . 
California  City  Jails : 

Received  1914-15... 

In  jail,  6-30-14 


New  York  County  Penitentiaries: 

Received,  1916-17 

In  prison,  6-30-17 

New  York  County  Jails: 

Received,  1916-17 

In  jail,  6-30-17 


Per  cent 

Male 

Female 

Female 

29,950 

1,052 

3.4 

2,071 

50 

2.4 

1,648 

69 

4.0 

129,650 

8,000 

5.8 

463 

26 

5.3 

15,041 

434 

2.7 

2,172 

93 

4.1 

37,573 

2,405 

6.0 

1,524 

106 

6.5 

The  above  table  simply  means  that  most  of  the  people  found  guilty 
of  misdemeanors  are  men.  It  does  not  show  the  relative  "criminal- 
ity" of  men  and  women,  because  there  is  no  means  of  discovering  the 
number  of  unpunished  offenses  of  either  sex.  In  fact,  it  is  pretty  well 
understood  that  the  police  and  courts  are  much  more  lenient  toward 
women  than  toward  men.  In  some  cases  the  women  are  known  to  the 
police  for  some  time  before  the  first  arrest,  and  are  not  committed 
by  the  magistrate  until  they  have  been  arrested  a  number  of  times.8 
Furthermore,  we  should  not  be  unduly  impressed  with  variations  in 
the  percentage  of  women.  A  single  raid  by  "Vice  Crusaders"  just 
before  a  report  is  made  up  will  obviously  change  the  proportion  of 
women  prisoners  for  an  entire  state. 


7  The  table  which  follows  is  made  up  from  data  in  the  following  official  reports: 
A  Study  in  County  Jails  in  California.     26. 

California  State  Board  of  Char,  and  Corr.     1916:    97,  106-115. 
New  York  State  Commission  of  Prisons.     1917:  404,  426-427. 

8  See   Journal   of   Criminal    Law,    8:    851,    concerning   women    in    Holmesburg 
(Philadelphia)  House  of  Correction. 


INMATES  OF  COUNTY  JAILS  AND  OTHER  MISDEMEANAN  CS 


45 


It  is  very  probable,  however,  that  there  is  a  decidedly  larger  pro- 
portion of  male  than  of  female  misdemeanants.  This  very  likely  can 
be  explained  in  terms  of  a  difference  in  the  metabolism  of  the  sexes.9 
But  there  is  little  doubt  that  the  number  of  female  offenders  is  much 
greater  Chan  the  number  of  women  arrested  and  convicted.  More- 
over, the  number  is  surely  large  enough  to  make  it  impossible  to 
regard  misdemeanants  as  a  single  type  so  far  as  sex  is  concerned. 

Ages  of  Misdemeanants10 
percentages  of  misdemeanants  in  several  age  groups 


Age 

California 

New  York  City 

Rhode  Island 

Pennsylvania 

Groups11 

County  Jails 

Workhouses 

State  Workhouse 

County  Jails 

20  and  under . 

13 

6 

5 

12 

21-30 

31 

30 

30 

47 

31-40 

26 

29 

29 

41 

41-50 

17 

19 

19 

. . 

51  and  over. . . 

13 

16 

16 

Totals .  .  . 

100 

100 

100 

100 

Ages  of  Misdemeanants  Compared  with  General  Population 
Percentages  of  Each  ln  Several  Age  Groups 


Age  Groups11 


20  and  under 

21-30 

31-40 

41-50 

51  and  over. . 

Totals.  . 


California 
County  Jails 


General  population  of  California 
over  15  years  of  age 


11 
26 
23 
18 
22 

100 


• 


"Thomas,  W.  I.:   "Sex  and  Society."     Chicago.     1907. 

10  Data  in  this  table  were  taken  from  the  following  sources: 
A  Study  in  County  Jails  in  California.     28-29  (figures  for  1914). 
New  York  City  Department  of  Corrections.     1915:  54-55. 
Rhode  Island  Board  of  State  Charities  and  Corrections.    1915:  91. 

totals  up  to  and  including  1915.) 

Pennsylvania  Board  of  Commissioners  of  the  Public  Charities.     1915:  110. 

11  For  the  California  County  Jails  the  age  groups  actually  used  were:    21  and 
under,  22-29,  30-39,  40-49,  50  and  over.    This  accounts  in  part,  at  least,  for  the 


(Figures  are 


46 


THE  PASSING  OF  THE  COUNTY  JAIL 


The  most  important  fact  that  stands  out  from  these  tables  is  that 
misdemeanants  are  pretty  well  distributed  over  the  various  age 
groups.  Of  course,  there  are  relatively  more  misdemeanants  among 
the  younger  people,  but  it  is  perhaps  natural  that  friction  with  the 
law  should  occur  more  frequently  during  the  active  years  of  life.    The 

Birthplace  of  Misdemeanants12 

Number  and  percentage  of  misdemeanants  and  ratio  of  misdemeanants  to  the  general 
population  born  in  the  same  state,  other  states  and  foreign  countries 

California,  1914 


Brithplace 

County 

actual 

number 

Jail 

prisoners 
per 
cent 

General 

populati'n 

per  cent 

Ratio  of  prisoners  to 
total  of  same  birth- 
place in  general 
population 

California 

5,251 

12,395 

9,142 

20 
46 
34 

38 
36 
25 

0.59 

Other  states 

1.28 

Foreign  countries 

1.38 

Totals 

26,788 

100 

99* 

Chicago  House  of  Correction,  1915 


Illinois 

4,533 
5,402 
6,492 

28 
33 
39 

47 
17 
36 

0.60 

Other  states 

1.94 

Foreign  countries 

1.08 

Totals 

16,427 

100 

100 

Kansas  City  Farm,  1913-1914 

Missouri 

865 

1,703 

380 

29 

57 
14 

43 
45 
10 

0.67 

Other  states 

1.27 

Foreign  countries 

1.40 

Totals 

2,948 

100 

98* 

significant  thing  is  not  the  decreasing  proportion  of  misdemeanants  in 
the  groups  above  the  age  of  forty.  The  significant  thing  is  the  small 
amount  of  that  decrease.     It  is  important  to  note  that  the  distribu- 

larger  per  cent  in  the  first  group.  The  second  group,  on  the  other  hand,  would  be 
larger  if  the  classification  were  the  same  as  in  the  other  columns. 

12  Data  taken  from  the  following  sources: 

Thirteenth  U.  S.  Census.     Population.     1:712,727,728. 

A  Study  in  County  Jails.     30-31. 

Chicago  House  of  Correction.     1915. 

Kansas  City  Board  of  Public  Welfare.     1914:  119. 

*  The  remaining  1%  and  2%  arc  unknown. 


INMATES  OF  COUNTY  JAILS  AND  OTHER  MISDEMEANANTS 


47 


linn  in  age  groups  is  not  very  different  for  misdemeanants  and  for  the 
general  population.  Certainly  misdemeanants  do  not  constitute  a 
single  type  so  far  as  age  is  concerned. 

As  in  the  matter  of  ages,  the  first  observation  we  are  led  to  make  is 
that  misdemeanants  are  distributed  over  all  the  groups  considered. 
There  is  complete  absence  of  such  uniformity  as  would  justify  us  in 
regarding  them  as  a  single  type.  It  is  interesting  that  both  in  Califor- 
nia and  Chicago  the  "native  sons"  were  both  actually  and  relatively 
the  smallest  group.  In  Kansas  City  their  absolute  number  was 
greater  than  that  of  the  foreign-born  prisoners,  but  the  relative 
number  was  smaller.  This  suggests  either  that  people  who  move 
about  are  more  apt  to  clash  with  the  law  or  else  that  the  police  are 
more  ready  to  arrest  outsiders.  Perhaps  both  are  true.  But  the  large 
number  of  "native  sons"  among  misdemeanants  everywhere  makes  it 
impossible  to  classify  them  or  typify  them  in  terms  of  migration. 

One  of  the  best  studies  that  has  been  made  of  the  relation  of  birth- 
place to  petty  offenses  is  the  work  of  Miss  Grace  Abbott.13  Her  table 
is  presented  herewith. 

Nativity  of  Male  Persons  Arrested  and  Convicted  of  Misdemeanors   in 

Chicago  in  1913 


Arrests 

Convictions 

Per  cent  distribution 

of  male  persons   in 

Chicago,  21  years 

and  over 

Nativity 

Number 

Per 

Cent 

Number 

Per 

cent 

American: 

White 

50,999 
4,741 

31,416 
3,282 
1,240 
181 
6,942 
1,592 
209 
2,354 
2,972 
7,519 
2,857 
2,268 

58.5 
5.4 

36.1 
3.8 
1.4 
.2 
8.0 
1.8 
.3 
2.7 
3.4 
8.6 
3.3 
2.6 

23,656 

2,179 

13,855 

1,492 

537 

90 

2,977 

947 

115 

901 

1,333 

3,314 

1,330 

819 

59.6 
5.5 

34.9 
3.8 
1.3 
.2 
7.5 
2.4 
.3 
2.3 
3.4 
8.3 
3.3 
2.1 

43.1 

Colored 

2.6 

Foreign 

54.3 

Austrians .... 

11.2 

English 

5.2 

French 

Germans 

12.6 

Greeks 

.6 

Hollanders 

.7 

Irish 

4.4 

Italians 

Russians 

Scandinavians 

Others 

3.2 
8.5 
6.7 
1.2 

Totals 

87,156 

100 .0 

36,690 

100  0 

100.0 

13  Abbott,  Grace:  "Immigration  and  Crime."  Delinquent.   August,  1915.  p.  1-8. 


48 


THE  PASSING  OF  THE  COUNTY  JAIL 


From  these  figures  it  would  seem  that  some  nationalities  furnish 
more  than  their  share  of  misdemeanants.  But  before  undertaking  to 
draw  any  far-reaching  conclusions  we  ought  to  know  how  long  the 
immigrants  had  been  in  this  county  and  the  attitude  of  the  police 
toward  the  people  of  different  nationalities.  Miss  Abbott  discusses 
these  matters  somewhat  in  the  article  referred  to.  What  seems 
particularly  worth  emphasizing  here  is  that  petty  offenders  are 
drawn  from  all  elements  of  the  population;  more  or  less,  though  by 
no  means  exactly,  in  the  ratio  of  their  numerical  importance. 

The  California  study,  which  unfortunately  did  not  classify  the 
foreign-born  prisoners  according  to  nationality,  did,  however,  state  in 
general  terms  the  length  of  their  residence  in  the  United  States.  It 
showed  that  only  5%  had  been  here  less  than  one  year;  18%  from  one 
to  five  years;  16%  from  five  to  ten  years.  The  rest  of  those  about 
whom  information  could  be  secured  had  been  in  the  country  more 
than  ten  years.  This  means  that  for  California  at  least  the  problem 
is  practically  one  of  Americans.14 

In  the  matter  of  race  we  have  not  been  able  to  secure  very  satis- 
factory data  for  different  parts  of  the  country.  But  in  California 
five-sixths  of  the  county  jail  prisoners  were  classified  as  "white." 
The  following  table  shows  the  number  and  proportion  of  certain 
groups  that  would  not  be  counted  as  white. 

Special  National  and  Racial  Groups  in  California  County  Jails,  1914 

Number  and  Percentage  of  prisoners  and  ratio  of  prisoners  to  general  population  of 

same  nationality  or  race. 


Race  or 
Nationality 


County  Jail  Prisoners 


Actual 

number 


Per  cent 

of  all 
prisoners 


Per  cent  of 
General 

population 


Ratio  of  prisoners 
to  general  popu- 
lation of  same 


race 


Negroes .  . 
Chinese.  . 
Indians.  . 
Japanese . 
Mexicans. 


1,021 
703 
202 
168 

3,078 


3.2 
2.2 
0  6 
0.5 
9.7 


0.9 
1.5 
0.7 
1.8 

? 


3.55 
1.47 
0.86 
0.28 

? 


Thus  while  the  negroes  and  perhaps  the  Mexicans  contribute  more 
than  their  share  of  misdemeanants,  they  are  not  typical  of  the  petty 

14  A  Study  in  County  Jails  in  California,     pp.  21,  42. 


INMATES  OF  COUNTY  JAILS  AND  OTHER  MISDEMEANANTS  V > 


offender  group.     Taken  with  the  other  special  racial  and  national 
groups  they  constitute  only  one-sixth  of  all  the  county  jail  prisoners. 

M  \ritat.  Status  of  Misdemeanants15 


Marital 
Status 

New  York 
City 

Workhouses 

Chicago 

House  of 

Correction 

Kansas  City 
Farm 

Philadelphia 

Detention 

Home  for 

Women 

11,617 
6,872 
1,627 

10,089 
6,338 

2,047 
763 
141 

759 

216 

Widowed                 

61 

Divorced                   

14 

Separated 

139 

Totals 

20,116 

16,427 

2,951 

1,205 

These  figures  show  that  there  is  a  decided  preponderance  of  single 
persons  among  the  misdemeanants,  but  at  the  same  time  they  make  it 
clear  that  a  program  of  treatment  based  upon  the  assumption  of 
bachelorhood  would  fail  to  meet  the  needs  of  many.  The  following 
table  of  percentages  shows  the  proportion  of  married  and  single 
prisoners  compared  with  the  proportion  of  married  and  single  persons 

Marital  Status  of  Misdemeanants  Compared  with  the  General  Population1" 


Percentage  of  Married 
Persons 

Percentage  of  Single 
Persons 

City 

Mis- 
demeanants 

General 
population 

Mis- 
demeanants 

General 
population 

Chicago . .         

39 
26 
38 
46 

18 

55 
55 
54 
53 
55 

61 

74 
62 

54 
82 

45 

Kansas  City  (male) 

New  York  (male) 

43 
46 

New  York  (female) 

Philadelphia  (female) 

47 
45 

u. 


16  The  data  for  this  table  were  taken  from  the  following  sources: 
New  York  City  Department  of  Correction.     1915:  74. 
Chicago  House  of  Correction.     1915. 
Kansas  City  Board  of  Public  Welfare.     1914:  119. 
National  Conference  of  Social  Work.     1918:  134  (Philadelphia). 
16  Data  taken  from  the  same  sources  as  for  previous  table;  also  from  Thirteenth 
S.  Census.     Population.     1 :  619,  624,  629,  634. 


50 


THE  PASSING  OF  THE  COUNTY  JAIL 


in  the  general  population.  To  simplify  the  statement  we  have  lumped 
unmarried,  widowed,  divorced  and  separated  together  as  "single." 
Every  institution  shows  a  preponderance,  both  actual  and  relative, 
of  single  persons.  But  in  every  case  both  the  number  and  the  percent- 
age of  married  offenders  is  so  great  that  it  is  not  possible  to  regard 
misdemeanants  as  typically  free  from  marital  relations. 

Occupations  of  Misdemeanants17 


Occupational 
Groups 

California 

County 

Jails 

Chicago 

House  of 

Correction 

New  York 

City 
Workhouses 

Detroit 

House  of 

Correction 

"Laborers" 

12,717 

2,901 

2,177 

2,166 

852 

226 

641 

1,521 

5,881 

4,421 

3,071 

2,598 

214 

128 

22 

92 

6,742 
3,367 
6,834 
2,794 
39 
219 

121 

2,906 

Mfg.  and  Mech 

1,626 

Domes,  and  Pers 

633 

Trade  and  Trans 

798 

Agricultural 

106 

Professional 

30 

Min.  and  Fish 

36 

Miscellaneous 

7 

Totals 

23,138 

16,427 

20,116 

6,142 

Percentages  of  Misdemeanants  in  Various  Occupational  Groups 


Occupational 
Groups 

California 

County 

Jails 

Chicago 

House  of 

Correction 

New  York 

City 
Workhouses 

Detroit 

House  of 

Correction 

"Laborers" 

55 
13 
9 
9 
4 
1 

3 
6 

36 
27 
18 
16 
1 
1 

0 
1 

34 

17 

34 

13 

0 

1 

0 

1 

48 

Mfg.  and  Mech 

26 

Domes,  and  Pers 

10 

Trade  and  Trans 

13 

Agricultural 

2 

Professional 

0 

Min.  and  Fish 

1 

Miscellaneous 

0 

Totals 

100 

100 

100 

100 

17  Data  for  this  table  were  taken  from  the  following  sources: 
A  Study  in  County  Jails  in  California.     22,  46-53. 
Chicago  House  of  Correction.     Report.     L915. 
New  York  Department  of  Correction  Report.     1915:  57-64. 
Detroit  House  of  Correction.     Report.     1917:  19. 


INMATES  OF  COUNTY  JAILS  AND  OTHER  MISDEMEANANTS  51 

Warnings  given  hitherto  as  to  accuracy  of  the  statistics  presented 
must  be  redoubled  here,  for  classification  of  the  many  occupations 
listed  in  the  several  reports  has  been  a  most  difficult  task.  In  general, 
the  divisions  used  by  the  United  States  Census  have  been  followed. 
But  in  several  respects  this  has  been  impossible.  Thus  jail  registers 
frequently  record  a  man  as  an  engineer  without  a  hint  as  to  whether 
he  is  civil,  electrical,  mechanical  or  railroad  engineer.  Furthermore, 
the  popular  designation  "common  laborers"  found  in  all  the  reports 
is  not  used  at  all  by  the  Census.  Hence  it  is  not  possible  to  compare 
the  distribution  of  misdemeanants  with  the  general  population  in  the 
matter  of  occupation. 

There  seems,  however,  to  be  no  doubt  as  to  the  fact  that  from  a 
third  to  a  half  of  the  misdemeanants  are  unskilled  laborers.  Perhaps 
the  proportion  is  even  larger.  But  it  is  more  than  likely  that  the 
same  thing  is  true  of  the  general  population.  We  must  further 
observe  that  all  the  occupational  groups  are  represented  among  the 
misdemeanants.  Again  we  fail  to  find  a  misdemeanant  type.  To 
indicate  more  clearly  the  diversity,  the  separate  occupations  which 
appear  in  the  California  report  are  presented. 

Occupations  of  California  Misdemeanants,  1914 
Agriculture,  Forestry  and  Animal  Trade  and  Transportation 

Husbandry  Bookeeper 81 

Farmer 573  Clerk 320 

Farmhand 117  Merchant 128 

Gardner 79  Peddler 114 

"Horseman" 42  "R.R.man" 226 

"Lumber jack" 41        852  Sailor 277 

Salesman 260 

Professional  (unclassified)  . .  226        226  Teamster 710     2,116 


Domestic  and  Personal  Manufacturing  and  Mechanical 

Barber 220  Baker 78 

Bartender 105  Blacksmith 145 

Butcher 105  Boilermaker 125 

Cook 802  Bricklayer 107 

"Domestic" 220  Carpenter 489 

Housewife 310  Cigarmaker 35 

Waiter 415     2,177      Electrician 104 


"Engineer" 119 

Mining  and  Fishing  Fireman 98 

Fisherman 58  Ironworker 107 

Miner 583        641       Lineman 58 

Mechanic 590 


52 


THE  PASSING  OF  THE  COUNTY  JAIL 


Miscellaneous 

Soldier 168 

Student 137 

"Miscellaneous" 1216 


1,521 


Painter 458 

Plumber 185 

Printer 83 

Tailor 120     2,901 


Total,  14,879 

The  fact  and  the  extent  of  recidivism  are  strikingly  revealed  by 
the  reports  of  the  Allegheny  County  (Pittsburg)  Workhouse  and 
Inebriate  Asylum.    The  figures  quoted  below  are  for  the  year  1915. 18 

Recidivism  of  Misdemeanants  in  Allegheny  County  Workhouse  and  Inebriate 

Asylum,  1915 


Number 

of 

Number  of 

Number  of 

Number  of 

Commitment 

Prisoners 

Commitment 

Prisoners 

1. 

88,202 

26 

175 

2. 

27,439 

27 

140 

3. 

13,533 

28 

138 

4. 

8,105 

29 

125 

5. 

5,523 

30 

118 

6. 

4,292 

31 

117 

7. 

3,210 

32 

96 

8. 

2,322 

33 

88 

9. 

1,721 

34 

82 

10. 

1,720 

35 

80 

11. 

1,037 

36 

70 

12. 

1,015 

37 

69 

13. 

753 

38 

66 

14. 

720 

39 

61 

15. 

719 

40 

61 

16. 

513 

41 

58 

17. 

429 

42 

50 

18. 

423 

43 

42 

19. 

384 

44 

40 

20. 

383 

45 

35 

21. 

286 

46 

34 

22. 

243 

47 

30 

23. 

217 

48 

28 

24. 

216 

49 

27 

25. 

Total 

216 

50  or  over.  .  .  . 

404 

165.855 

"  Report  for  1915.    p.  89. 


INMATES  OF  COUNTY  JAILS  AND  OTHER  MISDEMEANANTS 


53 


Iii  other  words,  47  per  cent  of  those  committed  to  this  county 
institution  were  known  to  be  repeaters.  Of  these  repeaters,  65  per 
cent  were  known  to  have  served  more  than  one  previous  sentence; 
and  a  considerable  number,  though  not  a  large  percentage,  was  known 
to  be  in  for  at  least  the  fiftieth  time.  A  similar  report  for  the  Rhode 
Island  State  Workhouse19  shows  over  50  per  cent  of  misdemeanants  to 
be  recidivists.  The  Chicago  House  of  Correction  found  in  the  same 
year  44  per  cent  admitting  that  they  had  served  sentence  before.20 
Of  1024  women  committed  to  the  Holmesburg  (Philadelphia)  House 
of  Correction  in  1915,  59  per  cent  were  repeaters,  and  35  per  cent  were 
serving  their  fourth  or  more  than  fourth  commitment.21  Interesting 
figures  are  shown  for  the  last  institution  as  to  the  relation  between 
time  of  release  and  recommitment. 

Time  Between  Release  and  Recommitment,  Holmesburg,  Pa.,  191521 


Less  than  1  week 4 

1  week  to  1  month 12 

1  to  3  months 30 

4  to  6  months 60 

7  months  to  1  year 47 

Less  than  1  year 153 


1    to  2  years 39 

3  to  5  years 26 

Over  5  years 12 


Over  1  year 77 


Total  studied,  230 
Police  Record  of  W.  K.,  Springfield,  Illinois,  1913 


Date  of 
Arrest 

Charge 

Sentence 

Date  of 
Release 

Days 
Held 

May  31 
June  29 
July     1 
July  27 
July  31 
Aug.    8 
Aug.  21 

Drunk  and  disorderly 

Drunk 

Fined  $3 

June  12 
June  30 
July  26 
July  29 

Aug.    4 
Aug.  12 

Sept.    8 
Sept.  22 
Oct.    13 
Nov.  10 
Dec.  31 

13 

No  prosecution 

2 

Drunk 

Fined  $25 

26 

Disorderly. . 

No  prosecution 

3 

Drunk 

No  prosecution 

5 

Drunk  and  disorderly 

Violations  of  conditions  of 

suspended  sentence 

Drunk 

Fined  $10,  but  sent.  susp. 
Fined  $10 

5 
19 

Sept.  21 
Oct.    12 

No  prosecution 

2 

Drunk . 

No  prosecution 

2 

Nov.    8 

Drunk .  .  . 

No  prosecution 

3 

Nov.  11 

Vagrancy. .                   

51 

Total  Days  held 

131 

19  R.  I.  Board  of  State  Char,  and  Corr.     1915. 

20  Chicago  House  of  Correction.     Report.     1915. 

21  Journal  of  Criminal  Law,  8:  855,  860-861. 


54  THE  PASSING  OF  THE  COUNTY  JAIL 

The  Springfield  (Illinois)  Survey  shows  the  fact  of  misdemeanant 
recidivism  in  a  slightly  different  manner.22  Within  that  one  city,  in 
the  single  year  1913,  548  persons  were  arrested  a  total  of  1447  times. 
One  was  arrested  16  times,  two  were  arrested  10  times  each,  three 
were  arrested  7  times  apiece.  Case  records  of  individual  repeaters 
make  the  situation  more  vivid. 

Such  facts  as  these  give  us  some  hints  about  the  people  whom  we 
call  misdemeanants;  they  also  shed  light  upon  the  ineffectiveness  of 
the  usual  methods  of  dealing  with  them.23 

In  the  California  study,  to  which  frequent  reference  has  been 
made,  an  effort  was  made  to  discover  the  length  of  time  persons  had 
been  in  the  community  before  their  clash  with  the  officers  of  the 
law.    The  table  on  following  page  is  a  summary  of  the  results.24 

The  surprising  fact  derived  from  this  particular  part  of  the  study 
is  that  although  the  county  jail  prisoners  were  residents  of  no  particu- 
lar county,  only  one-fifth  had  been  in  the  state  less  than  a  year  before 
their  arrest.  Over  a  third  of  these  misdemeanants  had  not  been  in 
the  county  where  they  were  arrested  more  than  one  month.  In 
certain  counties  where  there  is  no  city  jail  at  the  county  seat,  and 
where  the  county's  prisoners  therefore  comprise  almost  the  entire 
body  of  misdemeanants,  over  half  had  been  in  the  county  not  to 
exceed  one  week.  This  was  true,  for  example,  of  San  Joaquin,  Merced 
and  Monterey  counties.  It  was  true  of  San  Luis  Obispo  where  there 
is  a  city  jail  at  the  county  seat.  In  these  four  counties  1818  out  of 
3168  prisoners,  or  54  per  cent,  had  come  from  other  parts  of  the  state 
within  a  week  of  their  arrest.  Yet  in  these  same  counties  75  per 
cent  of  the  same  prisoners  had  been  in  California  over  a  year,  and 

22  Potter,  Zenas  L. :  The  Correctional  System  of  Springfield,  Illinois.  The 
Springfield  Survey.     New  York.     1915.     pp.  5,  20. 

23  Some  information  as  to  the  recidivism  of  European  petty  offenders  is  given  by: 

Jacquart,  Camille:    La  Criminalite  Beige.     Bruxellcs.     1909.     p.  75-80. 

Sutherland,  J.  F.:  Recidivism;  Habitual  Criminality  and  Habitual  Petty 
Delinquency.     Edinburgh.     1908. 

Bonger,  W.  A.:  Criminality  and  Economic  Conditions.  Translated  by  Henry  P. 
Horton.     Boston.     1916.     p.  523. 

American  Prison  Association.     1910:  455-463. 

Journal  of  Criminal  Law.     6:  843,  846. 

UA  Study  in  County  Jails  in  California,     pp.  20-21,  32-39. 


INMATES  OF  COUNTY  JAILS  AND  OTHER  MISDEMEANANTS 


55 


Misdemeanants  and  the  Tbansteni  Population 
Length  of  Time  in  County  Before  Arrest,  California,  1914 


Time 

Number 

Per  Cent 

1  week  or  less. . 

6,835 
2,209 

9,044 
4,375 

28.7 
9.3 

38.0 
18.4 

1  week  to  1  month 

1  month  or  less 

1  to  6  months 

6  months  to  1  year .... 

1  year  or  less 

1  to  5  years 

2,670 
1,705 

11.2 

7.2 

3,742 
6,644 

13,419 
10,386 

15.7 
27.9 

56.4 
43.6 

Over  5  years 

Over  1  year 

Total  known 

23,805 

100.0 

Length  of  Time  in  State  Before  Arrest,  California,  1914 


Time 


3  months  or  less . . . 

3  to  6  months 

6  months  to  1  year . 

1  year  or  less .  .  . 


1  to  5  years . . 
Over  5  years. 


Over  1  year. . .  . 
Total  known. 


Number 

Per  Cent 

2,489 

853 

1,810 

5,152 
18,682 

10.4 
3.6 
7.6 

21.6 

78.4 

5,211 
13,471 

21.9 
56.5 

23,834 

100.0 

52  per  cent  over  5  years.  This  shows  that  so  far  as  residence  is  con- 
cerned the  misdemeanants  constitute  a  state  rather  than  a  local 
problem. 


56  THE  PASSING  OF  THE  COUNTY  JAIL 

There  appears  to  be  a  popular  theory  to  the  effect  that  criminals 
possess  certain  physical  stigmata  which  mark  them  as  criminals. 
While  we  have  insufficient  evidence  to  say  without  qualification  that 
this  doctrine  is  false,  we  can  at  least  demonstrate  that  such  evidence 
as  is  available  points  to  a  very  different  conclusion. 

In  visiting  jails  and  talking  with  petty  offenders  we  have  been 
impressed,  more  than  anything  else,  with  their  great  variety.  We 
can  testify  with  certainty  that  there  is  no  uniformity  of  stature, 
weight,  eyes,  hair,  dexterity,  alertness  or  disease.  No  general  physical 
examinations  have  been  made  of  misdemeanants,  but  we  do  know  two 
things  with  assurance:  (1)  many  of  them  are  suffering  from  some 
disease  or  other,  (2)  the  nature  of  their  troubles  and  the  medical  or 
surgical  care  needed  are  of  many  different  kinds.  Light  is  shed  on  this 
subject  by  the  reports  of  a  number  of  institutions.  Thus  in  the 
Kansas  City  Municipal  Farm,  during  the  fiscal  year  1913-14,25  3191 
prisoners  were  received,  and  there  was  an  average  daily  population 
of  263.  At  the  same  time  there  were  679  hospital  cases,  an  average 
of  14  per  day.    The  report  lists  "diseases  treated"  as  follows: 

Diseases  Treated  in  Kansas  City  Municipal  Farm,  1913-14 

Alcoholism,  acute  and  chronic 159  Myocarditis 20 

Drug  habits 128  Epilepsy 11 

Syphilis 32  Scabies 9 

Gonorrhoea,  with  complications 35  Appendicitis 9 

Carbuncles,  boils,  etc 41  Pulmonary  tuberculosis 8 

Rheumatism 32  Circumcisions 8 

Influenza 26  Insanity 8 

Wounds,  incised,  cauterized,  etc 21  Pneumonia 5 

Chancers,  with  complications 21  Smallpox 5 

Vaccination  infected 17  Synavinitis 4 

Bubocectomy 16  Entiritis 4 

Total 679 

A  detailed  account  of  the  diseases  treated  in  the  hospital  of  the 
Chicago  House  of  Correction  in  1917  is  presented  in  the  report  of  the 
institution  for  that  year.  Suffice  it  to  say  that  medical  care  was  given  to 
4530  prisoners  for  111  causes  listed  in  the  report,  and  surgical  attention 
was  given  to  574  prisoners  for  128  listed  causes.  A  detailed  state- 
ment is  not  included  here  because  it  would  be  of  interest  only  to  the 
medical  profession. 

26  Kansas  City  Board  of  Public  Welfare.     1914:  98-100. 


INMATES  OF  COUNTY  JAILS  AND  OTHER  MISDEMEANANTS  57 

A  study  was  made  in  1917  of  100  women  offenders  in  the  Holmes- 
burg  (Philadelphia)  House  of  Correction,  which  made  an  interesting 
showing  of  physical  defects.26 

Results  of  Physical  Examination  of  100  Women  Misdemeanants 

Total  women  examined 100 

Total  defects  found 474 

General  medical 78       Drug  using 37 

Teeth 74      Gynecological 36 

Nervous  disorder 54      Malnutrition 23 

Poor  nutrition 53       Tuberculosis 21 

Eyes 45       Skin  disease 6 

Venereal  disease 43       Defective  hearing 4 

These  and  other  reports  which  might  be  examined  all  point  to  one 
general  conclusion  for  the  layman,  viz.,  that  very  many  misdemean- 
ants are  suffering  from  various  diseases,  and  that  they  are  in  need  of  a 
good  many  different  sorts  of  medical  and  surgical  care.  That  in 
itself  is  a  matter  of  no  little  consequence  in  understanding  these 
petty  offenders.  But  that  is  about  all  that  we  may  say  with  assurance 
at  the  present  time. 

Dr.  William  J.  Hickson27  has  made  the  statement  "that  delin- 
quency and  defectives  are  practically  synonymous,  the  principle  forms 
of  defectiveness  being  dementia  praecox,  psychopathic  constitution 
and  feeblemindedness."  But  the  only  conviction  we  receive  from  his 
evidence  is  that  he  found  what  he  was  looking  for.  In  the  first  place, 
he  studied  a  group  of  offenders  chosen  because  of  their  suspected 
defectiveness.  Second,  he  uses  a  set  of  concepts  about  which  there  is 
a  great  deal  of  debate.28 

26  Journal  of  Criminal  Law,  8:  871. 

27  Report  of  the  Psychopathic  Laboratory  of  the  Municipal  Court  of  Chicago. 
1914-17.     p.  149. 

28  See  articles  in:  Mental  Hygiene,  Journal  of  Criminal  Law,  Journal  of  Delin- 
quency, Journal  of  Psycho-Asthenics,  Training  School  Bulletin,  Zeitschrift  fur  die 
Erforschung  und  Behandlung  des  jugendlichen  Schwachsinns  auf  Wissenschaftlicher 
Grundlage. 

See  also: 

Healy,  Wm.:    "The  Individual  Delinquent."     Boston.     1915. 

Goddard,  H.  H.:    "Feeblemindedness."     New  York.     1914. 

Barr,  M.  W.:    "Mental  Defectives."     Philadelphia.     1910. 

Birnbaum,  Karl.    "Die  psychopathischen  Verbrecher."     Berlin.     1914. 


58 


THE  PASSING  OF  THE  COUNTY  JAIL 


It  seems  that  as  in  the  case  of  physical  condition,  the  available 
data  on  mentality  do  not  justify  sweeping  conclusions.  However, 
some  studies  have  been  made  which  help  us  to  an  understanding  of 
our  problem.  The  first  table  is  made  up  from  figures  presented  by 
Dr.  Victor  V.  Anderson,  one  time  psychologist  for  the  Boston  Munici- 
pal Court. 

Mental  Abnormalities  Discovered  in  Boston  Municipal  Court,  19 1429 


Men 

Women 

Mental  Condition 

Number 

Per  cent 

Number 

Per  cent 

Mental  defectives 

23 
49 
24 
7 
6 
5 
2 
1 
1 

3 

6 

13 

17 

35 
17 
5 
4 
4 
1 
1 
1 

2 
4 
9 

86 

36 

47 

6 

7 

1 

3 

3 

5 

13 

41 

Constitutional  psychopaths 

17 

Subnormal 

22 

Dementia  praecox ....                   

3 

Epileptics 

3 

General  paresis 

Cerebral-spinal  syphilis 

Alcoholic  halucinosis 

Psychoasthenia 

Manic  depressive  insanity 

2 

Senile  dementia 

2 

Unclassified  psychoses 

2 

Normal 

6 

Totals 

140 

100 

210 

100 

This  table  might  seem  to  bear  out  Dr.  Hickson's  statement  were 
it  not  known  that  these  also  are  the  results  of  studying  a  selected  lot 
of  cases.  The  next  table  is  much  fairer.  Pintner  and  Toops  examined 
132  out  of  147  inmates  of  an  Ohio  workhouse,  with  results  which  are 
summarized  herewith.30 


"  American  Prison  Association.     1914:  392-393. 

30  Pintner,  Rudolph,  and  Toops,  Herbert  A. :  "A  Mental  Survey  of  the  Population 
of  a  Workhouse."     Journal  of  Delinquency,  2:  278-287. 


INMATES  OF  COUNTY  JAILS  AND  OTHER  MISDEMEANANTS 


59 


Mental  Rating  of  Inmates  of  an  Ohio  Workhouse,  1917 


Mental  Age 

No.              Group 

No. 

Per  Cent 

—6 

11] 

6 

7 

8 
6 

Feebleminded 

38 

28.8 

8 

13 

9 

10 

17 1      Borderline 

22  J 

39 

29.6 

11 
12 

I       Backward 
18/ 

41 

31.0 

13 

41 

14 

15 

6 
2 

.      Normal 

14 

10.6 

16 

2\ 

Totals 

132 

100.0 

Classification  of  Inmates  of  an  Ohio  Workhouse  by  Offense  and  Median 

Mental  Age 


Offense 


Non-support 

Loitering 

Petit  larceny 

Assault  and  battery 

Drunkeness 

Disturbing  peace 

Embezzlement  and  destruction  of  property 

Contributing  to  delinquency 

Adultery,  disorderly  house 

Carrying  concealed  weapons 

Begging 

Miscellaneous 


Total. 


Median 

Number 

Mental 

Age 

29 

11.3 

23 

11.6 

23 

10.0 

10 

10.3 

10 

9.6 

9 

10.5 

5 

10.5 

4 

8.0 

4 

8.0 

4 

10.4 

3 

8.0 

5 

10.9 

' 


Even  if  we  were  justified  in  accepting  the  figure,  10.6%,  as  repre- 
senting the  exact  number  of  normal  persons  in  the  workhouse  studied, 
this  would  of  itself  be  sufficient  to  invalidate  Dr.  Hickson's  generaliza- 
tion.   But  our  position  is  even  stronger,  for  those  classed  as  backward 


60  THE  PASSING  OF  THE  COUNTY  JAIL 

and  borderline  have  not  been  shown  to  have  hereditary  defects. 
Hence  we  cannot  accept  the  dictum  that  "delinquency  and  defective- 
ness are  practically  synonymous."  In  the  Ohio  study  just  cited 
only  28.8%  of  the  prisoners  were  found  to  be  definitely  feebleminded. 
From  the  Chicago  House  of  Correction  Murray  and  Kuh  present 
further  data.31  In  the  five  years,  1912-16,  there  were  in  the  hospital 
for  treatment  22,404  cases.  Among  these,  1822  examinations  were 
made  by  the  neurological  department.  Of  the  1822,  there  were  635 
committable  cases,  4  cases  of  paralysis  agitans  and  one  of  acromegaly. 
The  remaining  1182  cases  were  hysteria,  neurasthenia  and  chronic 
alcoholism.  In  1916  there  were  committed  from  the  House  of  Cor- 
rection to  the  Psychopathic  Hospital: 

Dementia  praecox 109      Taboparesis 1 1 

General  paresis 56      Paranoia 4 

Senile  dementia 12       Feebleminded 2 

Alcoholic  psychosis 19       Epileptic  psychosis 3 

Manic  depressive 3      Traumatic  psychosis 3 

Juvenile  paresis 1 

Total 223 

It  is  important  to  remember  that  the  cases  of  mental  defect  or 
aberration  represent  here  less  than  10%  of  the  total  who  passed 
through  the  House  of  Correction  hospital. 

Gilliland  tested  100  inmates  of  the  Columbus,  Ohio,  Workhouse 
by  the  Yerkes-Bridges  Point  Scale.    Here  is  a  summary  of  his  find- 


ings.32 


Points  Passed  Number  tested 

33-49 6 

51-65 27 

67-80 37 

81-90 19 

91-99 11 


100 

If  67  out  of  100  misdemeanants  were  found  to  be  above  the  level 
of  feeblemindedness,  it  seems  hardly  fair  to  describe  delinquency  and 
defectiveness  as  practically  synonymous. 

In  considering  these  various  statements  as  to  the  mentality  of 
misdemeanants  we  need  assume  no  responsibility  for  their  accurate- 

11  Journal  of  Criminal  Law,  8:  839. 
a  Journal  of  Criminal  Law,  7 :  857-866. 


INMATES  OF  COUNTY  JAILS  AND  OTHER  MISDEMEANANTS  61 

ness.  So  far  as  that  goes,  we  may  as  well  recognize  that  there  is  a 
great  variety  of  opinions  as  to  what  constitutes  feeblemindedness.1'' 
But  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  the  bases  of  judgment  differ,  one  thing 
seems  apparent  from  all  the  reports  on  mental  status.  It  is  that 
there  is  a  wide  range  of  mental  ratings  among  misdemeanants,  and 
that  there  is  nothing  here  by  which  to  differentiate  them  from  the  rest 
of  the  population.  This,  of  course,  is  not  to  deny  that  there  may  be  a 
considerably  greater  percentage  of  dementia  praecox  or  feebleminded- 
ness or  any  abnormality.  It  simply  emphasizes  the  fact  that  many 
petty  offenders  are  normal,  that  the  remainder  are  handicapped  by 
a  variety  of  defects,  and  that  these  defects  are  found  among  people 
who  are  not  considered  delinquent. 

Before  leaving  this  subject  it  is  of  interest  to  see  what  formal 
education  has  been  received  by  some  misdemeanants.  Pintner  and 
Toops,  in  the  study  already  referred  to,  include  the  following  state- 
ment. 

Grade  at  Leaving  School,  Prisoners  in  an  Ohio  Workhouse34 
No  schooling 11         7th  grade 9 


1st  grade 3         8th  grade 20 

2nd  grade 7        9th  grade 5 

3rd  grade 11        10th  grade 

4th  grade 17       11th  grade 

5th  grade 16       12th  grade 2 

6th  grade 23                                              

Total 126 


i    Cx 


33  Dr.  Mable  Fernald  makes  the  following  statement  of  the  percentage  of  feeble- 
minded among  100  Bedford  inmates  according  to  the  various  standards  recommended 
by  different  authorities: 

Below  12  years  by  the  Binet-Simon  Scale,  1911  form  (15  year  and  adult  tests  used)  88% 
Below  12  years  by  Goddard  Revision  of  Binet-Simon  Scale,  1911  form  (15  year 

and  adult  tests  not  used) 100% 

Below  10  years  by  the  Binet-Simon  Scale,  191 1  form  (15  year  and  adult  tests  used)  41% 
Below  10  years  by  the  Goddard  Revision  of  the  Binet-Simon  Scale,  1911  form 

(15  year  and  adult  tests  not  used) 34% 

Below  75  points  by  Yerkes-Bridges  Point  Scale 65% 

Having  a  coefficient  of  mental  ability  of  0.75  or  less  by  the  Yerkes-Bridges 

Point  Scale,  standard  suggested  by  Dr.  Haines 38% 

Having  a  mental  quotient  of  less  than  0.75  or  a  mental  age  of  less  than  12  years 

by  the  Stanford  Revision,  standard  used  by  Dr.  Terman 65% 

Fernald,  Mable  R. :  "Practical  Applications  of  Psychology  to  the  Problems  of  a 
Clearing-House."     Journal  of  Criminal  Law,  7:  722-731. 

"Journal  of  Delinquency,  2:  284. 


62  THE  PASSING  OF  THE  COUNTY  JAIL 

Now  if  we  are  going  to  include  among  hereditary  defectives 
people  able,  in  spite  of  handicaps,  to  complete  the  grammar  grades, 
we  shall  have  to  revise  our  concept  of  mental  defect.  Out  of  these  126 
prisoners,  29  completed  the  eighth  grade.  But  it  is  probably  unfair 
to  count  most  of  those  who  finished  the  sixth  grade  as  defective.  If 
we  draw  our  imaginary  line  at  that  point,  we  find  61  or  practically 
one-half  on  the  side  which  at  least  deserves  the  benefit  of  the  doubt. 

A  study  by  Miss  Bryant  at  the  Holmesburg  (Philadelphia) 
House  of  Correction  shows  the  following  facts.36 

Schooling  of  100  Women,  Holmesburg  House  of  Correction 

None 26      6th  grade 5 

1st  grade 1       7th  grade 5 

2nd  grade 3      8th  grade 23 

3rd  grade 5      High  school 5 

4th  grade 9      Special 1 

5th  grade 5      Unknown 12 

Mrs.  Jane  D.  Rippin  presented  to  the  National  Conference  of 
Social  Work  in  1918  similar  data  concerning  1205  women  and  girls 
who  had  been  cared  for  in  the  Philadelphia  Detention  Home  for 
Women.36 

In  Mrs.  Solenberger's  study  of  chronic  beggars37  she  found  that 
"there  were  eight  college  men  among  the  135,  and  103  who  had  a 
common  school  education;  21  were  illiterate  and  the  amount  of  educa- 
tion of  three  was  unknown  ..." 

Consider  for  a  moment  some  simple  facts  about  the  general  popu- 
lation.38 In  1910  the  illiterates  of  the  United  States  included  7.7% 
of  all  the  people  over  10  years  of  age.  The  study  of  a  ten  year  period 
in  Cleveland  indicates  that  only  25%  of  the  children  enrolled  in  the 
first  grade  reached  the  eighth.  Thorndike's  computation  in  regard  to 
elimination39  estimated  that  out   of   100  children  entering  school, 

86  Journal  of  Criminal  Law,  8:  877. 

36  National  Conference  of  Social  Work.     1918:  135. 

37  Solenberger,  Alice  Willard:  "One  Thousand  Homeless  Men."  New  York. 
1911.     p.  165. 

38  Mangold,  Geo.  B.:  "Problems  of  Child  Welfare."  New  York.  1914.  pp. 
228  ff. 

"Thorndike,  E.:  "Elimination  of  Pupils  from  School."  U.  S.  Bureau  of  Educa- 
tion.    Bulletin.     1907.     No.  4. 


INMATES  OF  COUNTY  JAILS  AND  OTHER  MISDEMEANANTS  63 

Schooling  of  1,205  Inmates,  Philadelphia  Detention  Home  for  Women 
Grade  at  leaving  school  Age  at  leaving  school 

No  schooling 31  No  schooling 31 

Ungraded 7  8  years 2 

1st  grade 14  9  years 5 

2nd  grade 17  10  years 17 

3rd  grade 56  11  years 28 

4th  grade 112  12  years 54 

5th  grade 133  13  years 106 

6th  grade 215  14  years 430 

7th  grade 125  15  years 186 

8th  grade 224  16  years 143 

High  school  or  tech-  17  years 40 

nical 65  18  years 23 

College 4  19  years 7 

Unknown 202  20  years 3 

Still  attends 1 


Total 1,205      Unknown 129 


Total 1,205 

68  remain  to  the  sixth  grade  and  27  enter  high  school.  These  figures 
correspond  rather  closely  with  those  from  some  of  the  groups  of 
misdemeanants  studied.  Perhaps  the  simplest  way  to  present  the 
matter  will  be  to  compare  the  percentage  of  prisoners  who  reached 
given  grades  with  the  corresponding  figures  from  Thorndike's  compu- 
tation. 

Grade  Reached  in  School  by  1,363  Misdemeanants  Compared  with  Thorndike's 

Computation 

Grade  Percentage  of  misdemean-    Estimated  percentage  of  all 

reached  ants  who  entered  school         children  entering  school 

6th 54  68 

7th 36  54 

8th 25  40 

High  school 6  27 

This  shows  an  average  educational  handicap.  But  the  relative 
amount  of  that  handicap  must  surprise  those  who,  like  Dr.  Hickson, 
seem  to  regard  all  delinquents  as  defectives.  These  data  serve  still 
further  to  emphasize  and  illustrate  the  fact  that  the  conditions 
and  needs  of  misdemeanants  are  by  no  means  uniform.  Among  them 
we  find  imbeciles  and   superior   individuals,  illiterates  and  college 


( 

64  THE  PASSING  OF  THE  COUNTY  JAIL 

graduates.  Admittedly  our  evidence  is  not  exhaustive,  but  it  should 
be  sufficient  to  make  us  very  wary  of  efforts  to  describe  a  misde- 
neanant  type. 

So  far  we  have  dealt  with  general  information  for  the  most  part 
statistical  in  form.  A  much  better  understanding  of  the  human 
beings  involved  may  be  had  from  case  studies.  Fortunately  such 
studies  are  available.  Dr.  Baker,  psychiatrist  at  the  Westchester 
County  Penitentiary,  New  York,  has  reported  the  results  of  his 
work  with  50  vagrants.  We  take  the  liberty  of  quoting  two  of  his 
cases.40 

Case  No.  1.  A  man  who  was  sent  to  the  penitentiary  for  90  days.  He  is  36 
years  old;  was  born  in  this  country;  he  has  no  permanent  home  and  does  not  know 
the  address  of  any  relative.  All  the  information  he  could  give  about  his  family  was 
that  his  father  worked  in  a  coal  yard,  and  that  when  the  inmate  was  ten  years  old  his 
father  placed  him  in  a  home  along  with  his  brothers  and  sisters.  He  remained  in 
the  home  for  seven  or  eight  years.  He  found  school  work  too  difficult,  so  spent 
most  of  the  time  in  the  institution  "cleaning  around."  He  cannot  read  or  write. 
After  leaving  the  home  he  worked  on  farms  for  a  time,  earning  $4  or  $5  a  month. 
Once  he  worked  for  a  policeman,  caring  for  horses  at  $3  or  $4  a  week.  He  has  spent 
most  of  his  time  about  the  city  dump,  hunting  for  pieces  of  metal  which  he  sells  to 
junk  dealers.  When  he  has  money  he  lives  in  cheap  lodging  houses.  He  has  no 
friends  or  associates  and  spends  most  of  his  leisure  time  sitting  in  a  chair  in  a  lodging 
house.  He  has  served  eight  or  ten  sentences  for  vagrancy  in  the  penitentiary  on 
Blackwell's  Island.  He  is  inferior  in  his  general  appearance  and  has  a  marked  speech 
defect — stammering.  He  has  very  little  grasp  on  matters  of  general  interest,  and 
intelligence  tests  reveal  that  his  mental  age  is  eight  years.  Clearly  a  case  of  feeble- 
mindedness. He  was  happy  and  contented  in  the  penitentiary  and  was  faithful  at 
his  work,  which  consisted  in  cleaning  and  mopping  rooms  and  corridors. 

Here  is  a  man  who  has  been  convicted  repeatedly  for  vagrancy. 
He  is  physically  inferior,  stammers  and  is  definitely  feebleminded. 
It  is  little  wonder  that  he  cannot  get  along  in  competition  with  more 
able  men.     See  how  different  is  the  next  case. 

Case  No.  5.  Forty-two  years  of  age.  His  family  history  is  not  otherwise 
significant  than  that  a  sister  died  of  pulmonary  tuberculosis.  He  attended  school  for 
several  years.  He  was  interested  in  his  school  work  and  progressed  with  average 
ability.  He  converses  with  fair  intelligence  on  matters  of  current  interest  and 
retains  his  school  knowledge  fairly  well.  He  worked  steadily  and  in  a  shoe  factory 
until  about  twelve  or  fourteen  years  ago.  At  that  time  he  was  led  to  give  up  his 
jot)  in  the  shoe  factory  and  come  to  New  York  City,  expecting  to  make  more  money 


40  Baker,  Amos  T.:    "Vagrancy."     Mental  Hygiene,  2:  :-><>?•  604. 


INMATES  OF  COUNTY  JAILS  AND  OTHER  MISDEMEANANTS  65 

as  an  employee  of  the  street  railway  company.  He  worked  for  a  few  month 
three  or  four  different  jobs,  but  did  not  seem  to  be  able  to  hold  any  of  them.  He 
then  became  ill  and  was  laid  up  in  a  hospital  for  several  weeks  with  typhoid  fever. 
After  he  recovered  he  returned  home  and  remained  on  the  farm  for  a  few  months. 
When  he  felt  stronger  he  went  to  work  as  an  assistant  boss  in  a  livery  stable.  Then 
he  returned  to  the  shoe  factory  but  was  not  able  to  hold  his  job  for  longer  than  five 
months;  he  does  not  know  why,  except  that  he  felt  weak  and  sick.  Following  this 
he  remained  in  the  shoe  factory  town  but  did  not  do  any  work  for  a  year.  He  then 
went  to  New  York  City  again  expecting  to  go  to  work,  but  he  spent  another  year 
in  idleness  living  on  money  that  he  had  saved  up  in  former  years.  When  his  money 
gave  out  he  applied  at  a  police  station  for  lodging  and  was  sentenced  to  a  penitentiary 
for  vagrancy.  Since  his  release  from  the  first  penitentiary,  he  has  walked  about  the 
country.  Sometimes  he  works  on  farms,  but  says  that  he  never  seems  able  to  collect 
the  full  amount  of  his  wages.  He  does  not  correspond  with  his  family.  He  has 
served  a  number  of  terms  in  penitentiaries  for  vagrancy. 

This  man  is,  like  the  preceding  case,  a  vagrant  recidivist.  But 
how  different  in  other  respects!  He  has  been  to  school,  made  average 
progress,  learned  a  trade  and  acquired  a  fund  of  information  on 
matters  of  current  interest.  Perhaps  he  is  suffering  from  some  ner- 
vous disorder,  but  clearly  he  is  not  feebleminded. 

Mrs.  Solenberger's  study  of  one  thousand  homeless  men  includes 
a  good  many  who  were  tramps  and  beggars,  though  not  under  arrest 
at  the  time  she  was  interesting  herself  in  them.  Two  of  her  cases 
are  quoted  here.41 

.  .  .  One  case  may  be  interesting  to  cite,  that  of  a  Norwegian  by  birth, 
who  has  since  died  in  an  eastern  penitentiary.  We  have  since  found  upon  investiga- 
tion that  this  man,  who  was  asking  aid  in  Chicago  in  1903-4,  had  a  criminal  record 
in  this  country  and  Europe  which  included  among  other  offenses:  bigamy,  securing 
money  from  women  under  promises  of  marriage,  defrauding  a  life  insurance  company, 
swindling  several  hotels  and  a  lodge,  receiving  money  under  false  pretenses,  robbery, 
burglary,  attempting  to  dispose  of  a  body  of  a  dead  infant,  perjury  when  acting  as  a 
witness,  and  blackmail.  His  career  was  a  long,  continuous  chain  of  crimes  for  several  of 
which  he  had  served  terms  in  American  and  European  prisons.  But  the  significant 
thing  about  this  man's  history  was  that  during  all  the  years  in  which  he  was  securing 
large  sums  of  money  by  the  methods  referred  to,  he  was  at  the  same  time  constantly 
adding  smaller  amounts  to  his  income  by  clever  begging.  His  favorite  method  was 
to  represent  himself  as  almost  starving  in  a  strange  city  and  to  implore  money  for 
transportation  to  his  family  and  to  certain  employment  in  some  other  city.  He  was 
frail  and  delicate  in  appearance  and  in  spite  of  his  true  character  he  preserved  to  the 
end  of  his  career  an  innocent  and  almost  boyish  expression  which  served  him  well 
in  his  "profession." 


ilOp.  cit.    pp.  169-170,  1S1-182. 


66  THE  PASSING  OF  THE  COUNTY  JAIL 

Here  we  have  a  beggar  "working  the  game"  of  the  starving  man  in 
a  strange  city  and  needing  money  to  reach  his  family  and  a  job  far 
away.  In  addition  to  begging  he  also  has  a  record  of  bigamy,  fraud, 
perjury,  blackmail  and  numerous  other  crimes.  How  he  started  on 
this  career  we  are  not  told,  but  certainly  it  was  not  through  lack  of 
native  ability.    Note  the  complete  unlikeness  to  the  next  case. 

The  second  story  is  that  of  a  boy,  also  born  in  a  large  city,  who  when  his  home 
was  for  some  reason  broken  up,  was  placed  in  an  immense  institution  for  children. 
He  remained  there  for  a  long  period  during  which  he  received  little  or  no  individual 
training.  Shortly  after  he  left  the  institution  this  lad  met  with  an  accident  through 
which  he  lost  one  leg.  We  endeavored  to  help  him  by  securing  an  artificial  leg. 
His  record  in  the  interval  between  his  dismissal  from  the  orphanage  and  his  accident 
was  not  unfavorable  to  him  and  we  hoped  by  prompt  assistance  and  friendly  super- 
vision to  save  the  boy  from  becoming  a  vagrant.  It  was  not  until  after  he  had  sold 
the  leg  and  gone  to  begging  again  that  we  learned  what  perhaps  we  should  have 
discovered  earlier — that  he  was  too  undeveloped  mentally,  too  lacking  in  the  habit 
of  independent  thought  and  action  because  of  the  long  years  he  had  spent  under 
direction,  to  be  able  to  care  for  himself  even  when  given  an  amount  of  assistance 
which  would  have  been  sufficient  to  rehabilitate  the  average  man  who  is  not  immoral. 
He  did  not  beg  because  of  his  lameness — with  the  artificial  leg  he  had  learned  to 
walk  without  a  limp — nor  did  he  deliberately  choose  to  be  dependent  upon  others. 
His  mental  incapacity  to  grapple  with  the  problem  of  his  own  support  alone  seemed 
to  account  for  his  choice  of  the  line  of  least  resistance. 

Here  is  another  beggar.  His  immediate  classification  before  the 
law  would  be  the  same  as  that  of  the  preceding  case.  But  instead  of 
the  clever  crook,  we  have  here  a  lad  lacking  in  iniative,  probably 
because  of  the  long  period  spent  in  an  orphanage.  His  charactertistics 
are  entirely  different,  yet  his  offense  is  the  same. 

Prostitutes  are  for  the  most  part  handled  as  misdemeanants. 
The  cases  cited  below  suggest  some  of  the  many  factors  which  may 
enter  into  their  delinquency.  The  first  is  reported  by  Dr.  Anne  T. 
Bingham,  physician  and  mental  examiner  for  the  New  York  Proba- 
tion and  Protective  Association.42 

Ida  J.  was  brought  to  Waverly  House  by  a  detective  as  a  missing  person.  Age 
16  years,  5  months.  Born  in  New  York.  Father  born  in  Germany;  mother  in 
Ireland.  The  latter  died  of  tuberculosis  eleven  years  ago  and  the  father,  aged  49, 
is  in  an  advanced  stage  of  the  same  disease.  He  is  intelligent,  well  educated,  of 
good  habits.  He  has  been  strict  with  his  children,  has  a  quick  temper  and  is  capable 
of  bitterness,  which  qualities,  doubtless,  make  him  hard  to  live  with.     .     .     . 


41  Journal  of  Criminal  Law,  7:  874-5. 


INMATES  OF  COUNTY  JAILS  AND  OTHER  MISDEMEANANTS  67 

Most  of  Ida's  life  to  the  age  of  12  was  spent  in  Roman  Catholic  institutions. 
When  she  came  out  she  was  wild  and  much  preferred  playing  rough  street  games 
with  her  brothers  to  helping  with  household  tasks.  She  graduated  from  grammar 
school,  was  promoted  in  all  grades  and  attended  high  school  for  two  months.  She 
found  the  confinement  of  school  very  irksome  and  was  glad  to  leave.  She  worked 
for  two  months  in  a  day  nursery  but  was  not  lory.     Winn  15  she  was  seduced 

under  promise  of  marriage.  There  was  a  quarrel  and  after  a  month  her  lover  left 
her  to  marry  a  girl  whom  he  had  previously  ruined.  This  experience  added  to  Ida's 
bitterness.  She  continued  to  chafe  against  home  restrictions  and  early  in  the  winter 
of  1916,  following  a  quarrel  she  ran  away  from  home,  going  to  live  with  a  girl  known 
to  her  to  be  a  prostitute,  who  agreed  to  give  her  the  instruction  necessary  to  start 
her  in  a  similar  career.  After  three  weeks  of  street  life,  when  she  sometimes  earned 
$25  a  night,  she  decided  to  go  back  to  her  home.  There  she  was  met  by  blows  from 
her  father  and  taunts  from  her  sister  which  so  angered  her  that  she  recklessly  returned 
to  prostitution.  .  .  .  The  summary  of  the  mental  examination  notes  that  Ida's 
habits  have  been  so  well  established  that  she  should  be  able  to  cope  satisfactorily 
with  the  ordinary  demands  of  life.  .  .  Repression  is  such  a  prominent  characteristic 
that  it  is  reasonable  to  hold  this  trait  responsible  in  a  high  degree  for  the  girl's  per- 
verted emotional  outlets. 

Here  apparently  is  a  product  of  repression.  She  is  evidently  not 
defective,  but  the  restrictions  imposed  by  a  quick-tempered  father, 
followed  by  the  routine  of  an  institution  laid  the  foundation  for 
abnormal  expression  of  perfectly  normal  impulses.  Without  recourse 
to  cases  of  mental  abnormality,  we  can  find  very  different  factors 
in  the  same  overt  offense.  The  following  instance  is  taken  from  the 
report  of  the  Chicago  Vice  Commission.43 

An  inmate  of  a  house  of  prostitution  at  —  Dearborn  Street  by  the  name  of 
Paulette  said  she  was  22  years  of  age,  but  she  looks  much  younger.     She  formerly 

had  lived  in ,  Massachusetts,  where  she  married  at  17.     After  living  with  her 

husband  two  years,  they  had  a  misunderstanding  and  parted.  She  first  came  to 
Chicago  to  work  in  one  of  the  department  stores  downtown  in  the  shirtwaist  depart- 
ment, and  received  $7.00  a  week.  This  sum  was  afterward  reduced  to  $6.00.  "I 
could  not  live  on  that,"  she  said,  "so  I  took  up  the  sporting  life  because  it  appealed 
to  me.  It  was  impossible  to  make  a  living  where  I  was.  And  even  when  I  was 
in  the  store  I  made  money  on  the  side."  .  .  .  "While  in  the  store,"  she  continued, 
"I  heard  of  a  case  of  a  good  girl  getting  $6.00  a  week.  She  asked  for  more  money. 
She  said  she  couldn't  live  on  that.  The  man  said,  'Can't  you  get  somebody  to  keep 
you?'  " 

Perhaps  the  economic  factors  in  this  case  of  prostitution  might 
be  described  as  a  form  of  repression.  In  that  event  the  two  cases 
cited  could  be  considered  alike.    But  the  previous  experiences  of  the 

"The  Social  Evil  in  Chicago.     Chicago.     1911.     p.  212. 


68  THE  PASSING  OF  THE  COUNTY  JAILS 

two  girls  had  evidently  been  quite  different,  and  it  seems  plain  that 
reformative  treatment  must  be  different  for  each  of  them. 

Familv  desertion  is  a  misdemeanor  in  33  states.44  The  following 
case  is  taken  from  Miss  Brandt's  investigations.45 

It  was  a  Philadelphia  family.  The  man  had  been  an  inveterate  loafer  from 
boyhood,  had  stolen  money  from  his  employer  and  was  a  gambler  and  a  hard  drinker. 
He  was  a  plumber  and  could  earn  from  ten  to  twelve  dollars  a  week,  but  he  never 
worked.  "Possibly,"  suggested  the  agent,  "his  parents  were  too  easy  on  him  when 
he  was  a  boy,  just  as  his  wife  was  later.  The  rest  of  his  family  are  all  respectable 
people." 

There  were  seven  children  and  he  had  deserted  before  the  birth  of  each  one,  as 
well  as  at  other  times  when  there  was  sickness.  Relatives  and  churches  had  prac- 
rically  supported  the  family  for  eighteen  years.  The  wife  had  several  times  taken 
her  husband  into  court  on  the  charge  of  non-support,  but  he  was  always  given  "another 
chance."  The  woman,  herself,  was  a  hard  worker  and  an  "unusually  good"  mother. 
She  could  not  earn  more  than  four  or  five  dollars  a  week  at  best  and  the  only  boy 
of  working  age  not  more  than  three. 

When  the  Society  for  Organizing  Charity  undertook  to  direct  the  family  affairs 
the  man  was  under  orders  from  the  court  to  pay  three  dollars  a  week  but  he  was 
doing  nothing.     .     .     . 

The  woman  was  persuaded  to  have  her  husband  brought  into  court  for  non- 
payment of  order.     This  resulted  in  a  ninety  days'  sentence  for  contempt  of  court. 

This  family  deserter  is  described  as  an  habitual  loafer,  a  gambler, 
drunkard  and  thief.  He  had  a  good  trade,  but  did  not  work  enough 
to  support  his  family.  But  not  all  deserters  are  of  this  type.  One  of 
a  very  different  sort  is  described  by  Eubank.46 

The  domestic  situation  in  Henry  Slokowski's  home  might  well  have  tried  the 
patience  of  any  man.  When  he  married  Anna  she  was  a  rather  attractive  girl,  pretty 
in  a  cheap  way,  and  apparently  as  well  endowed  for  the  duties  of  married  life  as  any 
of  the  other  girls  in  the  Polish  community  where  they  lived.  It  did  not  take  many 
days  of  wedlock,  however,  to  reveal  that  a  ready  wit  which  had  been  one  of  her  charms 
in  her  lover's  eyes,  might,  under  certain  circumstances,  add  venom  to  a  shrewish 
tongue.  Her  easy  flow  of  conversation  when  it  found  expression  in  a  deluge  of 
scoldings  and  abuse  was  often  hard  to  bear.  Henry  was  a  good  worker  and  found 
no  difficulty  in  keeping  employed  at  wages  ranging  from  sixteen  lo  thirty-two  dollars 
a  week;  but  Anna  was  unthrifty  and  the  contents  of  the  pay  envelope,  which  he 
faithfully  turned  over  to  her  every  Saturday  night,  ran  through  her  lingers  with 


"Eubank,  E.  E.:    "A  Study  in  Family  Desertion."     Chicago.     1910.     p.  59. 
"Brandt,    Lillian:     "Five   Hundred   and  Seventy-Four   Deserters  and  Their 
Families."     New  York.     1905.     pp.  52-54. 
*Op.  cit.     pp.  47-4^ 


INMATES  OF  COUNTY  JAILS  AND  OTHER  MISDEMEANANTS  69 

little  to  show  for  it.  A  slovenly]  ill  kept  house  made  a  proper  frame  for  a  slatternly 
wife.  When  the  children  began  to  come  they  fitted  into  the  picture,  their  unwashed 
little  bodies  and  dirty  clothing  matching  hi  rs.  Every  night  coming  home  from 
work  to  a  half-prepared  meal  and  a  disorderly  household,  Henry  faced  a  volley  of 
abuse  because  he  did  not  earn  more  than  he  did. 

Henry  patiently  endured  all  this  for  ten  long  years.  He  drank  a  little  occasionally, 
but  not  to  excess.  The  social  conversation  of  the  Polish  saloon  where  he  dropped 
in  for  a  glass  of  beer  perhaps  twice  a  week,  was  practically  his  only  recreation  or 
diversion.  Even  this  was  made  the  subject  of  hitter  abuse  by  his  wife,  fn  and  out 
of  his  hearing  she  did  not  fail  to  inform  those  who  would  listen  of  how  lazy  he  was 
that  he  did  not  earn  more,  and  of  how  he  wasted  that  little  in  saloons  and  beer  halls 
while  his  neglected  family  bore  the  penalty. 

Possibly  Henry  would  have  gone  on  to  the  end  in  this  humble  henpecked 
existence  had  not  Martin  Pribiloff  appeared  on  the  scene.  He  came  into  the  home 
as  a  boarder;  he  remained  as  Anna's  lover.  Obviously  Henry  was  in  the  way,  so, 
as  meekly  as  he  had  been  a  husband,  he  became  a  deserter. 

Here  is  a  man  guilty  before  the  law  of  the  identical  offense  of  fam- 
ily desertion.  But  instead  of  being  himself  an  idler,  drunkard, 
gambler  and  thief,  he  has  been  for  ten  years  the  patient  husband  of 
an  extravagant,  abusive,  slatternly  and  unfaithful  wife.  It  is  clear 
that  the  offense,  the  overt  act,  is  a  very  inadequate  basis  for  classify- 
ing offenders.  These  eight  case  histories  are  suggestive  of  the  many 
different  factors  that  may  enter  into  the  delinquency  of  persons 
technically  guilty  of  the  same  crime. 

In  conclusion — the  evidence  presented  in  this  chapter  seems  to 
show  pretty  clearly  that  misdemeanants  do  not  constitute  a  well- 
defined  type.  Even  granting  that  such  a  distinct  human  type  could 
be  established — which  we  do  not  grant — it  will  certainly  have  to  be 
based  on  some  aspect  of  their  lives  other  than  those  concerning  which 
we  have  data. 

What  different  acts  have  made  people  misdemeanants!  For  one  it 
may  be  drunkenness,  for  another  fishing  out  of  season.  One  may  have 
stolen  a  hen,  another  "skipped"  his  board  bill. 

Most  of  the  misdemeanants  are  men,  but  the  number  of  women  is 
much  too  great  to  be  ignored. 

A  large  proportion  is  under  thirty  years  of  age,  but  a  surprising 
number  is  over  fifty. 

Most  petty  offenders  are  American-born,  but  the  various  foreign 
groups  contribute  percentages  which  approximate  their  relative 
importance. 


70  THE  PASSING  OF  THE  COUNTY  JAIL 

The  negroes  seem  to  commit  an  undue  share  of  misdemeanors,  but 
the  great  majority  of  petty  offenders  in  most  states  is  white. 

There  is  an  excessive  proportion  of  single  persons,  but  on  the  other 
hand  there  are  very  many  who  acknowledge  marital  relations. 

Unskilled  laborers  represent  a  large  fraction  of  the  misdemean- 
ants, but  there  are  representatives  of  nearly  all  occupations,  probably 
in  about  the  same  ratio  as  in  the  general  population. 

Perhaps  half  are  "repeaters,"  but  there  is  a  constant  stream  of  new 
recruits. 

Very  many  belong  to  the  transient  population,  but  almost  as 
many  are  "old  residents." 

Physical  defects  seem  to  be  about  the  same  as  may  be  found  among 
non-delinquents.  They  are  so  varied  as  to  leave  no  distinct  impres- 
sion. So  far  as  the  evidence  shows,  they  are  no  more  numerous  than 
in  the  general  population. 

Native  ability,  intelligence  and  education  all  seem  to  average  less 
than  in  the  non-criminal  population.  But  the  misdemeanants  include 
all  grades  of  mentality  from  imbeciles  to  superior  individuals,  from 
illiterates  to  college  graduates. 

Individual  differences  and  a  common  humanity  overshadow  the 
evidence  which  may  seem  to  support  the  theory  of  a  misdemeanant 
type. 


CHAPTER  IV 

Misdemeanants    and    Felons    an    Outgrown    Classification 

Classification  of  offenders  and  the  definition  of  "criminal  types" 
have  until  quite  recently  occupied  a  large  share  of  the  criminologists' 
attention.  In  the  early  days  of  criminology  it  was  perhaps  natural 
that  efforts  to  organize  information  about  delinquents  should  take 
the  form  of  pigeon-holing.1  For  purposes  both  of  explanation  and  of 
treatment  it  appears  to  have  been  regarded  as  sufficient  to  group 
criminals  with  reference  to  a  single  common  characteristic.  But  it 
was  inevitable  that  out  of  the  manifold  classifications  and  the  increas- 
ing attention  to  offenders  rather  than  to  their  acts  a  new  view  should 
arise.  Individualization  has  established  its  place  in  the  juvenile 
court,2  and  through  the  new  Sing  Sing3  is  assuming  prominence  in  the 
care  of  adult  felons.  But  up  to  the  present  this  idea  has  scarcely  been 
applied  to  misdemeanants.4  Doubtless  this  results  in  part  at  least 
from  a  policy  of  one  thing  at  a  time.  But  it  is  undeniable  that  hither- 
to much  more  attention  has  been  given  to  felons  than  to  the  so-called 
petty  offenders.  Moreover,  it  is  likely  that  such  neglect  may  be 
traced,  among  other  causes,  to  the  maintenance  of  this  traditional 
classification. 

1  A  number  of  such  classifications,  including  those  of  Lombroso,  Ferri,  Havelock 
Ellis  and  Garofalo,  are  discussed  by  Parmelee  in  his  "Criminology"  (New  York,  1918). 
It  is  curious  that  in  criticising  them  he  fails  to  take  a  cue  from  clinical  studies  such 
as  those  to  which  reference  was  made  in  the  preceding  chapter.  Instead  of  pointing 
out  the  failure  of  the  earlier  classifications  to  stress  the  complexity  of  causal  factors 
in  each  individual  instance,  he  glibly  passes  on  to  propose  one  more  set  of  categories, 
as  formal  and  superficial  as  those  he  criticises.     (See  page  198  of  his  book.) 

2Healy,Wm.:    "The  Individual  Delinquent."     Boston.     1915. 

Bridgeman,  Olga:  "An  Experimental  Study  of  Abnormal  Children."  Berkeley, 
Cal.     1918. 

Journal  of  Criminal  Law  and  Criminology.     Chicago.     1910 — . 

Journal  of  Delinquency.     Whittier,  Cal.     1916 — . 

3  Glueck,  Bernard,  in  Mental  Hygiene,  2:  85-139.     1918. 

The  Prison  and  the  Prisoner.  A  Symposium.  Edited  by  Julia  K.  Jaffray. 
Boston.     1917. 

*  See  chapters  I  and  II. 

71 


72  THE  PASSING  OF  THE  COUNTY  JAIL 

It  seems  a  bit  strange  that  while  engaged  in  overthrowing  various 
theoretical  classifications  of  crime  and  criminals  most  writers5  should 
overlook  the  traditional,  and  possibly  even  more  obsolete  and  confus- 
ing legal  classification,  viz.,  into  misdemeanants  and  felons.  In 
order  that  there  may  be  no  uncertainty  as  to  the  fact  and  nature  of 
this  classification,  let  us  turn  to  the  codes  of  two  representative  states. 
The  Illinois  law  reads  as  follows: 

Chap.  38.  Sec.  277.  A  felony  is  an  offense  punishable  with  death  or  by 
imprisonment  in  the  penitentiary. 

Sec.  278.     Every  other  offense  is  a  misdemeanor.6 

The  definitions  of  the  California  Penal  Code  are  almost  identical. 

Sec.  17.  A  felony  is  a  crime  which  is  punishable  with  death  or  by  imprisonment 
in  the  state  prison.  Every  other  crime  is  a  misdemeanor.  When  a  crime,  punishable 
by  imprisonment  in  the  state  prison,  is  also  punishable  by  fine  or  imprisonment  in 
a  county  jail,  in  the  discretion  of  the  court,  it  shall  be  deemed  a  misdemeanor  for 
all  purposes  after  a  judgment  imposing  a  punishment  other  than  imprisonment  in 
the  state  prison.7 

Obviously  this  is  primarily  a  classification  of  penalties  and 
offenses,  but  it  involves  a  corresponding  division  of  offenders.  If  we 
had  here  merely  categories  for  arranging  lists  of  proscribed  acts,  this 
distinction  would  be  relatively  harmless.  But  correlated  with  it, 
and  possibly  resulting  from  it  are  several  difficulties.  First,  as  already 
suggested,  misdemeanants  are  not  getting  the  benefit  of  a  good  many 
innovations  in  correctional  methods.  It  should  be  clear  from  the 
evidence  already  presented  that,  as  contrasted  with  state  prisons, 
county  jails  are  less  sanitary,  provide  less  segregation,  less  occupation 
and  less  education.  Repression  rather  than  rehabilitation  is  their 
principle  and  practise.  Second,  inasmuch  as  county  care  is  more  and 
more  admitted  to  be  inherently  ill-adapted  to  the  needs  of  petty 
offenders,  state  systems  will  probably  displace  it.  But  this  would 
mean  two  sets  of  institutions  for  adult  delinquents,  unless  the  distinc- 
tion between  felons  and  misdemeanants  be  abandoned.    To  be  sure, 

5  Notable  exceptions  are: 

Stephen,  Sir  James  Fitzjames:  "A  History  of  the  Criminal  Law  of  England." 
London.     1883. 

Train,  Arthur:    '•The  Prisoner  at  the  Par."     New  York.     1915. 
1  Kurd's  Revised  Statuti    of  Illinois.     1917. 
7  Deerin^'s  Penal  Code  of  California.     1(>()<>. 


MISDEMEANANTS  AND  FELONS  73 

suchahoarylradilionslunihliKjt.be  lightly  ca^t  aside.  But  unit 
it  is  of  some  definite,  practical  value  today,  it  may  well  be  dropped 
from  our  penal  codes.  Moreover,  if  it  can  be  shown  that  its  present 
usefulness  is  negligible,  and  that  it  is  really  ill-defined  and  confusing, 
then  we  should  the  more  readily  eliminate  it  from  our  thinking  and 
practise.  That  it  is  ill-defined  and  confusing,  that  it  is  a  handicap  to 
prison  reform  and  that  whatever  usefulness  it  may  have  had  is  long 
since  outlived  seem  to  be  the  necessary  conclusions  from  the  data 
which  follow. 

The  Classification  of  Offenders  as  Misdemeanants  and 

Felons  Grew  Out  of  an  Historical  Situation  Which 

No  Longer  Exists 

If  one  could  view  the  present  legal  classification  of  offenders  as 
felons  and  misdemeanants  in  innocent  ignorance  of  the  tradition 
which  gives  it  life,  he  would  doubtless  regard  the  division  as  very 
queer.  But  knowing  that  laws,  unlike  Athene,  do  not  spring  full 
grown  from  Zeus's  brow,  he  would  seek  for  the  origin  of  this,  which  in 
the  light  of  present  conditions  alone  seems  illogical  and  anomalous. 
No  one  has  described  the  history  of  these  concepts — misdemeanor  and 
felony — more  clearly  than  Sir  James  Fitzjames  Stephen,  once  Judge 
of  the  High  Court  of  Justice,  Queen's  Bench  Division.8  Hence, 
although  his  book  is  old,  we  venture  to  quote  from  it  at  some  length. 

The  classification  of  crimes,  as  felony  and  misdemeanor,  is  very  ancient.  The 
word  "felonia,"  indeed,  appears  in  Glanville,  and  is  commonly  used  in  Bracton.  .  .  . 
I  do  not,  however,  remember  in  Bracton  any  express  classification  of  offenses  as 
being  either  felonies  or  misdemeanors.  In  later  times  the  sense  of  the  word  came 
to  be  definitely  fixed,  though  it  is  not  easy  to  give  any  exact  definition  of  it.  It  is 
usually  said  that  felony  means  a  crime  which  involved  the  punishment  of  forfeiture, 
but  this  definition  would  be  too  large,  for  it  would  include  misprision  of  treason 
which  is  a  misdemeanor.  On  the  other  hand,  if  felony  is  defined  as  a  crime  punishable 
with  death,  it  excludes  petty  larceny  which  was  never  capital,  and  includes  piracy 
which  was  never  felony.  Felony  was  substantially  the  name  for  the  more  heinous 
crimes,  and  all  felonies  were  punishable  by  death,  with  two  exceptions,  namely, 
petty  larceny  and  mayhem,  which  came  by  degrees  to  be  treated  as  a  misdemeanor. 
If  a  crime  was  made  felony  by  statute,  the  use  of  the  name  implied  the  punishment 
of  death,  subject,  however,  to  the  rules  already  stated  as  to  benefit  of  clergy.  Thus, 
broadly  speaking,  felony  may  be  defined  as  the  name  appropriated  to  crimes  punishable 
by  death,  misdemeanor  being  a  name  for  all  minor  offenses.  There  were,  and, 
indeed,  still  are  a  good  many  differences  of  considerable  importance  in  the  procedure 


8  Stephen,  Sir  James  Fitzjames:  op.  cit.,  especially  2:  192-106. 


74  THE  PASSING  OF  THE  COUNTY  JAIL 

relating  to  the  prosecution  of  felonies  and  misdemeanors  respectively.  The  most 
important  are,  that  as  a  rule  a  person  cannot  be  arrested  for  misdemeanor  without  a 
warrant;  that  a  person  committed  for  trial  for  a  misdemeanor  is  entitled  to  be  bailed 
(speaking  generally),  whereas  a  person  accused  of  felony  is  not;  and  that  on  a  trial  for 
felony  the  prisoner  is  entitled  to  twenty  peremptory  challenges,  whereas  upon  a  trial 
for  misdemeanor  he  is  entitled  to  none. 

So  long  as  the  punishment  of  death  and  the  law  relating  to  benefit  of  clergy 
were  in  force,  the  distinction  between  felony  and  misdemeanor  was  not  only  an 
important  but  might  also  be  described  as  an  essential  part  of  the  law,  but  since  the 
substitution  of  milder  punishments  for  death,  the  distinction  has  become  unmeaning 
and  a  source  of  confusion,  especially  as  many  offenses  have  been  made  misdemeanors 
by  statutes,  which  render  the  offender  liable  to  punishments  as  severe  as  those  which 
are  now  usually  inflicted  upon  persons  convicted  of  felony.  It  is  impossible  to 
suggest  any  reason  why  the  offense  of  embezzlement  should  be  a  felony,  and  the 
offense  of  fraud  by  an  agent  or  bailee  a  misdemeanor,  or  why  bigamy  should  be  a 
felony  and  perjury  a  misdemeanor,  or  why  certain  kinds  of  forgery  should  be  felonies, 
and  obtaining  goods  by  false  pretenses  a  misdemeanor.     .     .     . 

Upon  the  whole  it  may  be  said  that  no  classification  of  crime  exists  in  our  law 
except  one,  which  has  become  antiquated  and  unmeaning. 

Sir  Stephen  then  goes  on  to  present  from  a  purely  legal  point 
of  view  his  arguments  not  only  for  abolishing  this  particular  classifi- 
cation, but  for  doing  without  any  classification  whatsoever.  Without 
claiming  that  he  has  described  just  exactly  what  happened  in  the 
development  of  the  traditional  categories,  we  are  probably  well  within 
the  facts  when  we  say  that  his  statement  is  essentially  correct.  The 
account  of  other  historians9  at  least  do  not  appear  to  conflict.  Con- 
sequently the  conclusion  may  be  drawn  that  the  classification  of 
offenders  as  misdemeanants  and  felons  grew  out  of  an  historical 
situation  which  no  longer  exists;  that  reasons  which  account  for  its 
origin  are  not  sufficient  to  justify  its  continuance.  Our  problem 
then  becomes  that  of  seeking  to  discover  if  there  is  a  present  service  to 
be  performed,  a  function  to  be  fulfilled  by  this  classification.  If  not, 
is  it  a  harmless  vestige  of  the  past,  or  are  there  convincing  arguments 
for  its  elimination? 

9  Holdsworth,  W.  S.:    "A  History  of  English  Law."     London.     1909. 

Pollock,  Sir  Frederick,  and  Maitland,  Frederic  Wm.:  "The  History  of  the 
English  Law  before  the  Time  of  Edward  I."     Cambridge.     191 1 . 

I 'ike,  Luke  Owen:    "A  History  of  Crime  in  England."     London.     1873. 

Kocourek,  Albert,  and  Wigmore,  John  H.:  "Formative  Influences  of  Legal 
Development."     Boston.     1918. 


MISDEMEANANTS  AND  FELONS  75 

Offenses  Which  Are  Sometimes  M isdemeanors,  Sometimes 

Felonies 
The  dubious  position  and  the  confusing  nature  of  our  legal  classi- 
fication are  indicated  by  the  fact  that  what  is  a  misdemeanor  in  one 
state  may  be  a  felony  in  another.  This  is  no  new  discovery.  Nearly 
thirty  years  ago  Dr.  F.  H.  Wines  called  attention  to  some  startling 
discrepancies  between  the  laws  of  different  states  regarding  certain 
offenses.10  This  statement  he  repeated  and  brought  up  to  date  in 
1910. u  Taking  a  cue  from  Wines,  Powers  made  a  similar  study12 
in  1918.  Neither  Wines  nor  Powers  was  concerned  with  the  classifi- 
cation of  offenses.  Therefore  it  has  been  necessary  to  revise  their 
data  in  order  to  present  it  with  reference  to  the  proposition  that  from 
state  to  state  there  is  no  agreement  as  to  what  offenses  are  misde- 
meanors and  what  ones  felonies.  Powers  has  prepared  tables  showing 
the  penalties  for  110  different  offenses  under  the  laws  in  effect  in  1918 
in  eleven  states.  He  selected  four  northern  states,  four  western 
and  three  southern  states.  They  are:  Illinois,  Massachusetts,  New 
York,  Wisconsin,  Arizona,  Nevada,  New  Mexico,  Oregon,  Alabama, 
Georgia,  Louisiana.  Within  this  group  of  only  eleven  states  in  a 
single  year  one  third  of  the  offenses  studied  represent  a  sort  of  border- 
land between  misdemeanors  and  felonies.  More  exactly,  39  out  of 
110  offenses  were  punished  in  some  states  as  misdemeanors,  in  other 
states  as  felonies.  If  a  larger  number  of  states  or  a  wider  range  of 
time  had  been  considered,  the  number  of  doubtful  cases  would  almost 
certainly  have  increased.  However,  the  investigation  has  been 
sufficiently  extended  to  demonstrate  pretty  conclusively  that  there  is 
nothing  inherent  in  an  offense  which  makes  it  a  misdemeanor  or  a 
felony.13 

10  Eleventh  United  States  Census.  Vol.  3.  "Crime,  Pauperism  and  Benevo- 
lence."    1890. 

11  Correction  and  Prevention.  Vol.  1.  "Prison  Reform  and  Criminal  Law  in 
the  United  States."  Chap.  4.  "Possible  and  Actual  Penalties  for  Crime."  New 
York.     1910. 

12  Powers,  J.  Orin:  "A  Comparative  Study  of  the  Penal  Codes  of  Representative 
States  in  the  American  Union."     Unpublished  Thesis.     University  of  Illinois.     1918. 

13  The  original  sources  of  the  data  which  follow  are: 

Massachusetts  Revised  Laws.  1902.  Supplement  1902-1908.  Massachusetts 
Session  Laws.     1909-1917. 

New  York  Penal  Code  and  Code  of  Criminal  Procedure.  Annotated  by  John  T. 
Cook.     Albany.     1917. 


76 


THE  PASSING  OF  THE  COUNTY  JAIL 


Offenses  Misdemeanors  en  Some  States,  Felonies  in  Others 


Offense  and  State 


Classification 


Imprisonment 


Minimum 


Fines 


Maximum  Minimum 


Maximum 


Arson  of  fences: 

Arizona 

Illinois 

Georgia 

Arson  of  woods,  grain, 
etc. 

Georgia 

Arizona 

Alabama 

Illinois 

Embezzlement 

Alabama 

Massachusetts 

Illinois 

Stealing  horse,  cattle  or 
hog: 

Wisconsin 

Illinois 

Arizona 

Extortion : 

Nex  Mexico 

Alabama 

Illinois 

Massachusetts 


Misdemeanor 

Felony 

Felony 


Misdemeanor 
Misdemeanor 

Felony 

Felony 

Misdemeanor 

Felony 

Felony 

Misdemeanor 

Felony 

Felony 

Misdemeanor 
Misdemeanor 

Felony 

Felony 


lyr. 
lyr. 


2  yr. 
1  yr. 

6  mo. 


10  da. 
3  yr. 
lyr. 


1  yr. 


6  mo. 
6  yr. 
20  yr. 


6  mo. 
6  mo. 
10  yr. 

6  yr. 

6  mo. 
Life 
10  yr. 


1  yr. 
20  yr. 
10  yr. 

30  da. 
6  mo. 

20  yr. 
15  yr. 


S  300 


S5 


1,000 
300 

100 


Twice 


amt.  taken 
2,000 


20 


100 


250 

500 

5,000 

5,000 


Wisconsin  Statutes.     1913.     Lyman  J.  Nash,  Revisor.     Laws  of  Wisconsin,  1915. 

Arizona  Revised  Statutes.  Penal  Code.  1913.  Samuel  L.  Pattee,  Code 
Commissioner.     Arizona  Session  Laws.     1915,  1916. 

Nevada  Revised  Laws.     1912.     Nevada  Statutes.     1913,  1915,  1917. 

New  Mexico  Statutes  Annotated.  1915  Session.  Laws  as  an  Appendix.  New 
Mexico  Laws  of  1917. 

Oregon.  Lord's  Oregon  Laws,  Annotated.  1910.  Oregon  General  Laws.  1911, 
1913,  1915,  1917. 

Alabama  Code.  Adopted  1907.  James  J.  Mayfield,  Code  Commissioner. 
Alabama  General  Laws.     1(>0<),  1911,  1913,  1915,  1917. 

Georgia,     Park's  Annotated  Code.      1914.     Georgia  Paws.     1916. 

Louisiana.  Annotated  Revision  of  the  Statutes  through  the  session  of  1915. 
Robt.  M.  Man.     Louisiana  Acts  of  1916 

Illinois.     Ilurd's  Revised  Statutes.     1917. 


MISDEMEANANTS  AND  FELONS 


77 


Offense  and  State 


Blackmail: 

Illinois 

Georgia 

Massachusetts. 

New  York 

Gambling 

Illinois 

Georgia 

New  York 

Nevada 

Drawing  weapon: 

Louisiana 

Oregon 

New  York 

Assault : 

Louisiana 

Arizona 

Massachusetts 

Wisconsin 

False  imprisonment: 

Louisiana 

Georgia 

Arizona 

Abandonment  of  child 

Georgia 

Illinois 

New  York 

Abandonment  of  wife: 

Illinois 

Alabama 

Arizona 

Wisconsin 

Criminal  libel 

Alabama 

Illinois 

Nevada 

New  Mexico 

Blacklisting: 

Alabama 

Oregon 

Arizona 

Illinois 


Classification 


Misdemeanor 
Misdemeanor 

Felony 

Felony 

Misdemeanor 
Misdemeanor 

Felony 

Felon}- 

Misdemeanor 
Misdemeanor 
Felony 

Misdemeanor 
Misdemeanor 

Felony 

Felony 

Misdemeanor 
Misdemeanor 
Felony 

Misdemeanor 

Felony 

Felony 

Misdemeanor 
Misdemeanor 

Felony 

Felony 

Misdemeanor 
Misdemeanor 

Felony 

Felony 

Misdemeanor 
Misdemeanor 

Felony 

Felony 


Imprisonment 


Minimum 


30  da. 


lyr. 

10  da. 
10  da. 


10  da. 

1  yr. 

10  da. 

1  yr. 


1  mo. 


30  da. 
lyr. 


Maximum 


6  mo. 

6  mo. 
Life 
IS  yr. 

60  da. 

6  mo. 
2yr. 

5  yr. 

30  da. 

6  mo. 

7yr. 

60  da. 
3  mo. 
3yr. 
8  yr. 

60  da. 
6  mo. 
10  yr. 

6  mo. 
3yr. 

7yr. 

1  yr. 
1  yr. 
5yr. 
2yr. 

6  mo. 

1  yr. 
5yr. 

2  yr. 

60  da. 
90  da. 

5yr. 
5yr. 


Fines 


Minimum 


10 


10 


300 


100 


200 

50 
50 


Maximum 


500 
1,000 


1,000 
1,000 


50 

500 

1,000 

100 

300 

1,000 


300 
1,000 


1,000 
1,000 


500 
100 

500 

500 

500 

5,000 

2,000 

500 
250 


1,000  and  up 

2,000 


78 


THE  PASSING  OF  THE  COUNTY  JAIL 


Offense  and  State 


Classification 


Imprisonment 


Minimum 


Maximum 


Fines 


Minimum 


Maximum 


Lewdness  with  a  child: 
Nevada 

Wisconsin < 

New  Mexico 

Louisiana 

Enticing  a  female : 

New  Mexico 

Alabama 

New  York 

Illinois 

Procuring    inmate    for 
house  of  prostitution: 

Wisconsin 

Alabama 

Oregon 

New  York 

Keeping  disorderly 
house: 

Oregon 

Georgia 

Massachusetts 

Wisconsin 1 

Allowing  minor  in  house 
of  prostitution: 

Nevada 

Oregon 

Illinois 

Alabama 

Detaining  female   in 
house  of  prostitution: 

Alabama 

New  York 

Illinois 

Concealing  death  of 
bastard: 

Georgia 

Illinois 

New  York 


Misdemeanor 
Misdemeanor 

Felony 

Felony 

Felony 

Misdemeanor 
Misdemeanor 

Felony 

Felony 


Misdemeanor . 
Misdemeanor . 

Felony 

Felony 


Misdemeanor . 
Misdemeanor. 

Felony 

Felony 

Misdemeanor. 


Misdemeanor 
Misdemeanor 

Felony 

Felony 

Misdemeanor 

Felony 

Felony 


Misdemeanor. 
Misdemeanor. 


Felon} 


6  mo. 

lyr. 

Life 
Death 

8  mo. 
6  mo. 
2yr. 
lyr. 


6  mo. 
6  mo. 
1  yr. 
2yr. 


30  da. 


1  yr. 
6  mo. 


lyr. 

2  yr. 


2yr. 
lyr. 


2  vr. 


lyr. 
6  mo. 
2yr. 


lyr. 

up 
20  yr. 
10  yr. 


lyr. 

up 
20  yr. 
20  yr. 


lyr. 
6  mo. 
2yr. 

3yr. 
1  yr. 


6  mo. 
6  mo. 
5  yr. 
up 


6  mo. 
20  yr. 
10  yr. 


6  mo. 

1  vr. 
5  yr. 


500 


1,000 
200 


80 
50 


100 

500 

5,000 


50 


500 


100 


200 


500 
1,000 


500 


500 
100 


50 


500 
5,000 


100 


MISDEMEANANTS  AND  FELONS 


79 


Offense  and  State 


Misdemeanor. 

Felony. 

Felony 


Misdemeanor . 

Felony 

Felony 


Misdemeanor. 
Misdemeanor . 

Felony 

Felony 


Misdemeanor. 
Misdemeanor. 

Felony 

Felony 


Procuring  miscarriage: 

Wisconsin 

New  Mexico 

Georgia 

Selling  drugs  or  instru- 
ments for  miscarriage: 

Nevada 

Alabama 

Arizona 

Adultery: 

New  York 

Alabama 

Illinois 

Wisconsin 

Notorious  cohabitation : 

New  York 

Oregon 

Alabama 

Massachusetts 

Bribery: 

Georgia  (a) 

Arizona  (b) 

Oregon 

(a)  disqualified  to  vote  or  hold  office. 

(b)  disqualified  to  hold  office. 
Accepting  bribe: 

Arizona 

Georgia 

Alabama 

Nevada 

Bribery  of  witness: 

Georgia  (a) 

New  Mexico 

Wisconsin 

Nevada 

(a)  disqualified  to  vote  or  hold  office 
Bribery  of  juror: 

Georgia  (a) 

Louisiana 

Oregon 

Wisconsin 


Classification 


Misdemeanor . 

Felony 

Felony 


Misdemeanor . 
Misdemeanor. 

Felony 

Felony 


Misdemeanor.  . 
Misdemeanor.  . 

Felony 

Felony 


Misdemeanor . 
Misdemeanor. 

Felony 

Felony 


Imprisonment 


Minimum 


1  mo. 
3  yr. 
Life 


6  mo. 
2yr. 
2  yr. 


lyr. 


1  mo. 

2  yr. 


lyr. 
1  yr. 


yr- 


lyr. 


1   vr. 
1  yr. 


Maximum 


6  mo. 
Life 
I  teatb 


lyr. 
10  yr. 

5yr. 

6  mo. 
6  mo. 
Life 

3  yr. 

6  mo. 
6  mo. 
Syr. 
3  yr. 

6  mo. 
14  yr. 
10  yr. 


6  mo. 

6  mo. 
10  yr. 
10  yr. 

6mo. 
1  yr. 
3  yr. 
10  yr. 


6  mo. 
1  yr. 
10  yr. 
3yr. 


lines 


Minimum 


500 


200 


50 


100 
100 


Maximum 


100 


1,000 
500 


250 
100 

1,000 

250 
300 

300 

1,000 
5,000 


300 
1,000 

5,000 

1,000 
500 

500 


1,000 
1,000 

500 


80 


THE  PASSING  OF  THE  COUNTY  JAIL 


Offense  and  State 


Falsely  impersonating 
an  officer: 

Oregon 

Nevada 

Alabama 

Georgia 

False  swearing: 

Arizona 

Louisiana j 

Alabama 

Illinois 

Resisting  an  officer: 

New  Mexico 

Nevada 

Arizona 

Alabama 

Rescue  of  prisoner: 

Nevada 

Alabama 

Oregon 

Running  gambling 
house: 

Massachusetts 

Arizona 

Nevada 

Illinois 

Carrying  concealed 
weapon : 

Arizona 

Wisconsin 

Oregon 

New  York j 

Conspiracy: 

Alabama 

Wisconsin 

Georgia 

Illinois 

Prize  fighting: 
Louisiana 


Classification 


Misdemeanor 
Misdemeanor 

Felony 

Felony 

Misdemeanor 
Misdemeanor 

Felony 

Felony 

Felon}- 

Misdemeanor 
Misdemeanor 

Felony 

Felony 

Misdemeanor 

Felony 

Felony 

Misdemeanor 
Misdemeanor 

Felony 

Felony 

M  i -demeanor 
Misdemeanor 

Felony 

Felony 

Misdemeanor 

Misdemeanor 
Misdemeanor 

Felony 

Felony 

Misdemeanor 


Imprisonment 


Minimum 


3  mo. 
6  mo. 
2yr. 
2yr. 


6  mo. 

2yr. 
lyr. 


lyr. 
lyr. 


1  yr. 
2yr. 


10  da. 


1  yr. 


Maximum 


1  yr. 

lyr. 
5yr. 
7yr. 

6  mo. 

2yr. 
20  yr. 
14  yr. 

30  da. 
6  mo. 
Syr. 
6  yr. 

6  mo. 
5  yr. 
14  yr. 


3  mo. 
6  mo. 
Syr. 
5yr. 


30  da. 
6  mo. 

5  yr. 

7yr. 

6  mo. 
1  yr. 
5  yr. 
5  yr. 

o  mo. 


Fines 


Minimum 


50 

500 


100 


Maximum 


500 
1,000 


300 


200 

500 

5,000 


500 


50 
100 


100 
500 


1,000 

1,000 
500 

5,000 

500 


MISDEMEANANTS  AND  FELONS 


81 


Offense  and  State 

Classification 

Imprisonment 

Fines 

Minimum 

Maximum 

Minimum 

M     imum 

New  York 

Oregon 

Misdemeanor. 

Felony 

Felony 

Misdemeanor.  . 
Misdemeanor.  . 

Felony 

Felony 

Misdemeanor.  . 

Felony 

Felony 

1  yr. 

1  yr. 

.}  mo. 

2  yr. 
5  yr. 

lyr. 
1  yr. 

lyr. 

5  yr. 
10  yr. 

6  mo. 
6  mo. 

5yr. 
Death 

6  mo. 
10  yr. 
10  yr. 

1 ,000 
100 
100 

500 
5,000 

1 1 1  i  nois 

Riot: 

Illinois 

200 

Louisiana 

500 

Alabama 

Georgia 

Grave  robbery: 

Alabama 

500 

Georgia 

Illinois 

In  the  above  tabulation  extremes  have  admittedly  been  selected 
for  presentation.  This  has  been  done  deliberately  in  order  to  empha- 
size the  confusion  which  exists  as  to  what  constitutes  a  felony  and 
what  a  misdemeanor.  The  differences  cannot  be  lightly  explained 
away.  The  same  state  may  have  relatively  light  penalties  for  some 
offenses,  and  yet  be  among  those  having  the  most  severe  penalties 
for  others.  Thus  Alabama  makes  abandonment  of  wife,  criminal 
libel  and  conspiracy  misdemeanors;  while  arson  of  woods,  selling 
drugs  for  miscarriage  and  extortion  are  felonies.  Similar  differences 
appear  even  within  a  single  group  of  offenses — e.g.  those  pertaining  to 
sex.  Thus  in  the  same  state  of  Alabama,  adultery,  enticing  a  female 
and  procuring  an  inmate  for  a  house  of  prostitution  are  misdemeanors; 
while  selling  drugs  for  miscarriage,  allowing  a  minor  in  a  house  of 
prostitution  and  notorious  cohabitation  are  felonies.  The  race 
problem  does  not  wholly  explain  the  situation.  While  false  swearing 
and  resisting  an  officer  may  have  been  made  felonies  as  a  means  of 
controlling  the  negroes;  impersonating  an  officer  and  extortion,  which 
are  more  apt  to  be  offenses  of  white  men,  are  also  felonies.  Explana- 
tion in  terms  of  race  is  further  clouded  by  the  fact  that  riot  is  a  felony 
in  Alabama,  but  only  a  misdemeanor  in  Louisiana;  conspiracy  is  a 
felony  in  Georgia,  but  only  a  misdemeanor  in  Alabama.  It  is  interest- 
ing to  note  other  differences  of  emphasis  in  adjoining  states.  Thus, 
resisting  an  officer  is  a  misdemeanor  with  a  maximum  imprisonment 


82  THE  PASSING  OF  THE  COUNTY  JAIL 

of  thirty  days  in  New  Mexico,  but  in  Arizona  it  is  a  felony  with  a 
maximum  of  five  years.  Stealing  a  horse,  cow  or  hog  is  a  misdemean- 
or with  a  maximum  penalty  of  one  year  in  Wisconsin,  but  in  Illinois  it 
is  a  felony  with  a  minimum  of  three  years. 

In  the  face  of  these  discrepancies  and  this  confusion,  we  may  per- 
haps be  justified  in  suspecting  that  the  rating  of  an  offense  as 
misdemeanor  or  felony  is  simply  an  expression  of  the  opinion  of  the 
dominant  element  in  a  state  legislature  at  some  particular  time. 
We  may  further  imagine  that  "log-rolling,"  "trading,"  compromise 
and  passion  at  times  enter  into  the  process.14 

Some  Felons  Less  of  a  Menace  than  Some  Misdemeanants 

It  is  assumed,  no  doubt,  by  all  who  accept  or  defend  the  existing 
classification  of  offenders  that  felons  are  usually,  if  not  always  more 
dangerous  to  society  than  are  misdemeanants.  It  is  taken  for  granted 
that  the  acts  listed  as  felonies  are  in  themselves  more  harmful,  or  at 
least  that  they  show  their  perpetrators  to  be  more  dangerous  people. 
Hence  it  would  naturally  follow  that  especially  severe  measures 
should  be  taken  to  defend  society  against  felons. 

Presumably  the  penalty  for  any  offense  represents  the  concensus 
of  opinion  of  the  whole  people  or,  more  likely,  of  the  ruling  element, 
at  the  particular  time  this  act  was  proscribed.  But  as  time  passes 
and  economic  life  changes,  what  is  at  one  time  a  matter  of  grave 
importance  may  become  of  less  significance  and  vice  versa.  Thus 
among  the  cattlemen  of  the  West,  particularly  before  the  advent  of 
railroad  and  automobile,  theft  of  a  horse  meant  a  really  serious  loss. 
It  might  endanger  a  man's  life.  But  when  the  stockman  has  his 
automobile  and  the  ranges  are  fenced,  such  an  offense  becomes  of 
considerably  less  consequence.     On  the  other  hand,  so  long  as  the 

14  As  an  example  of  the  practical  problems  which  may  arise  out  of  this  undis- 
criminating  discrimination  between  misdemeanants  and  felons,  attention  is  called 
to  the  debates  of  social  workers  as  to  whether  family  desertion  should  be  placed  in 
one  category  or  the  other.  See  e.  g.,  National  Probation  Association.  9:  90,  99- 
lO.^.  National  Conf.  Char,  and  Corr.  1911:  406.  Eubank,  E.  E.:  "A  Study  of 
I  mily  Desertion."  Chicago.  1916.  p.  59.  Eubank  in  1916  found  this  offense 
classified  as  a  misdemeanor  in  33  states,  a  felony  in  15.  This  situation  has  created  a 
problem  for  case  workers  who  are  making  a  definite  effort  to  individualize  the  people 
with  whom  they  are  dealing.  The  relatively  fixed  penalty  within  any  given  state 
and  the  variation  of  Legal  status  between  States  make  it  practically  impossible  to 
I  with  family  deserters  in  accordance  with  the  spci  itic  fai  tors  in  their  several  cases. 


MISDEMEANANTS  AND  FELONS  83 

population  consisted  mainly  of  single  men,  whose  gains  and  losses 
directly  affected  no  one  but  themselves,  gambling  might  be  treated 
as  a  trivial  matter.  But  with  the  establishment  of  families,  loss  of 
a  month's  wages  at  roulette  or  faro  might  mean  a  bare  home  and 
hungry  children.  Yet  in  each  case  the  legal  penalty  may  remain 
unchanged.  For  the  new  generation  these  penalties  would  then 
probably  be  the  cause  rather  than  the  result  of  popular  rating  of  the 
offenses.  The  way  in  which  such  a  process  goes  on  with  the  growth 
of  industrialism  is  vividly  suggested  by  Professor  Ross.15 

.  .  .  People  are  sentimental,  and  bastinado  wrong-doing  not  according  to  its 
harmfulness,  but  according  to  the  infamy  that  has  come  to  attach  to  it.  Undiscerning 
they  chastise  with  scorpions  the  old  authentic  sins,  but  spare  the  new.  They  do  not 
see  that  boodling  is  treason,  that  blackmail  is  piracy,  that  embezzlement  is  theft, 
that  speculation  is  gambling,  that  tax-dodging  is  larceny,  that  railroad  discrimination 
is  treachery,  that  the  factory  labor  of  children  is  slavery,  that  deleterious  adulteration 
is  murder.  .  .  .  The  mob  lynches  the  red-handed  slayer,  when  it  ought  to  keep  a 
gallows  Hainan-high  for  the  venal  mine  inspector,  the  seller  of  infected  milk,  the 
maintainer  of  a  fire-trap  theatre.  The  child-beater  is  forever  blasted  in  reputation, 
but  the  exploiter  of  infant  toil,  or  the  concocter  of  a  soothing  syrup  for  the  drugging 
of  babies  stands  a  pillar  of  society.  The  petty  shoplifter  is  more  abhorred  than  the 
stealer  of  a  franchise,  and  the  wife-whipper  is  outcast  long  before  the  man  who  sends 
his  over-insured  ship  to  founder  with  its  crew. 

That  such  misplacement  of  emphasis  as  Ross  mentions  really 
exists  may  be  seen  from  an  exmination  of  the  penal  code  of  almost 
any  state.  Let  us  take  a  few  instances  from  the  laws  of  Illinois. 
The  factory  owner  who  fails  to  have  dangerous  machinery  enclosed  is 
a  misdemeanant,  and  may  be  punished  at  most  by  a  fine  of  $200, 
even  though  his  neglect  causes  loss  of  life.  But  a  man  convicted  of 
"involuntary  manslaughter"  may  be  sent  to  the  penitentiary  for  life.16 
Fraudulent  advertising  of  an  article  of  merchandise,  which  may  lead 
to  wasteful  expenditure  of  money  by  many  needy  families,  is  a 
misdemeanor  punishable  by  a  fine  of  not  over  $1,000,  or  60  days  in 
jail,  or  both.  But  the  man  who  crawls  through  an  open  window  to 
take  a  single  suit  of  clothes  is  a  burglar,  and  goes  to  the  penitentiary 
for  one  to  20  years.17  Whoever  gives  poison  directly  to  another  may 
be  convicted  as  a  felon  and  sentenced  to  the  penitentiary  up  to  20 

15  Ross,  E.  A.:    "Sin  and  Society."     Boston.     1907.     esp.  pp.  14-16. 
16Hurd's  Revised  Statutes.     1917.     Chap.  48,  Sec.  89,   114.     Chap.  38,  Sec. 
145-146. 

17  Ibid.    Chap.  38,  Sec.  102c,  36. 


84  THE  PASSING  OF  THE  COUNTY  JAIL 

years.  But  the  seller  of  impure  milk,  which  may  cause  the  death  of 
hundreds  of  infants,  is  only  guilty  of  a  misdemeanor,  for  which  the 
maximum  penalty  is  a  fine  of  $100,  or  six  months  in  a  county  jail,  or 
both.18  The  man  who  sets  fire  to  a  house  is  convicted  of  arson  and 
sentenced  to  the  penitentiary  for  one  to  20  years.  He  is  a  felon.  But 
the  owner  or  proprietor  of  a  fire-trap  lodging-house  is  at  most  guilty 
of  a  misdemeanor,  subject  to  a  fine  of  $25  to  $100,  with  the  possibility 
of  staying  in  jail  until  his  fine  is  paid.19  Anyone  who  leads  off  a  dog 
worth  more  than  $15  is  a  felon  and  is  liable  to  imprisonment  in  the 
penitentiary.  But  the  cannery  owner  who  robs  children  of  the  oppor- 
tunity for  education,  who  injures  their  health  by  long  hours,  who  takes 
away  the  privilege  of  play,  is  only  guilty  of  a  misdemeanor  and  sub- 
ject to  a  fine  of  $5  to  $25.20  The  same  idea  is  clearly  illustrated  by  a 
former  assistant  district  attorney  of  New  York  County.21 

Crimes  bear  no  absolute  relation  to  one  another.  A  murderer  may  or  may  not 
be  worse  than  a  thief — and  either  may  be  better  than  his  accuser.  The  actual  danger 
of  any  particular  offender  to  the  community  lies  not  so  much  in  the  kind  or  degree 
of  crime  which  he  may  have  committed  as  in  the  state  of  his  mind.     .     .     . 

There  can  be  no  general  rule  based  merely  on  the  name  or  kind  of  crime  com- 
mitted which  is  going  to  tell  us  which  offender  is  really  the  worst.  A  misdemeanor 
may  be  very  much  more  heinous  than  a  felony.  The  adulterer  of  drugs  or  the 
employer  of  illegal  child  labor  may  well  be  regarded  as  vastly  more  reprehensible 
than  the  tramp  who  steals  part  of  the  family  wash.  So  far  as  that  goes,  there  are 
an  alarming  multitude  of  acts  and  omissions  not  forbidden  by  statute  or  classed  as 
crimes  which  are  to  all  intents  and  purposes  fully  as  criminal  as  those  designated  as 
such  by  law.     .     .     . 

.  .  .  Two  drunken  men  become  involved  in  an  altercation  and  one  strikes 
the  other,  who  loses  his  equilibrium  and  falls,  hitting  his  head  against  a  curbstone 
and  fracturing  his  skull.  The  striker  is  indicted  and  tried  for  murder.  Now  he  is 
doubtless  guilty  of  manslaughter,  but  he  is  less  dangerous  to  the  community  than  a 
professional  thief  who  preys  upon  the  public  by  impersonating  a  gasman  or  telephone 
repairer  and  by  thus  gaining  access  to  private  dwellings  steals  the  owners'  property. 
One  is  an  accidental,  the  other  an  intentional  criminal.  One  is  hostile  to  society 
as  a  whole  and  the  other  is  probably  not  really  hostile  to  anybody.  Yet  the  less 
guilty  is  denominated  a  murderer,  and  the  other  is  rarely  held  guilty  of  more  than 
petty  larceny.  A  fellow  who  bumps  into  you  on  the  street,  if  he  be  accompanied  by 
another,  and  ^'ral)^  your  cane,  is  guilty  of  robbery  in  the  first  degree — "highway" 
robbery — and  may  get  twenty  years  for  it,  but  the  same  man  may  publish  a  malicious 


"Ibid.    Chap.  .18,  Sec.  230,  9. 

"Ibid.    (  bap.  58,  Set .  13.    Chap.  71,  Sec.  12. 

»/Wd.    Chap.  38,  Sec.  167.    Chap.  48,  Sec.  20,  21. 

51  Train,  Arthur:  "The  Prisoner  at  the  Bar."     New  York.     1015.     Esp.  pp.  5-9. 


MIS  DIM  I.  AN  ANTS  AND  FELONS  85 

libel  about  you,  and  by  accusing  you  of  the  foulest  practises  rob  you  of  your  good 
name  and  be  only  guilty  of  a  misdemeanor.     .     .     . 

.  .  .  Hence  you  may  deduce  a  general  principle  to  the  effect  that  the  charge 
against  the  prisoner,  even  assuming  bis  guilt,  indicates  nothing  definite  as  to  his  moral 
turpitude,  danger  to  the  community,  or  ^cni-ral  un<l<-  inability. 

Lest  it  be  suspected  that  these  statements  are  merely  products  of 
lively  imaginations,  let  us  consider  a  few  bona  fide  cases.  The  first 
is  that  of  a  man  convicted  of  felony  and  serving  sentence  in  Sing 
Sing.  The  case  is  reported  by  Dr.  Glueck,  until  recently  director  of 
the  psychiatric  clinic  in  that  institution.22 

The  policeman  who  arrested  an  ex-convict  whom  he  believed  had  reformed, 
admitted  to  us  that  he  could  not  make  up  his  mind  whether  to  arrest  the  man  but 
finally  concluded  that,  inasmuch  as  it  was  an  unusual  hour  of  the  night  for  anyone 
to  be  out,  he  might  as  well  run  him  in.  Incidentally  it  was  the  same  police  officer 
who  had  sent  him  to  state  prison  on  a  former  occasion.  This  man  had  lost  two 
fingers  while  serving  the  last  sentence  and  had  fully  determined  never  to  expose 
himself  to  a  similar  experience  again.  A  thorough  investigation  revealed  the  fact 
that  the  prisoner  actually  had  been  at  work  since  his  release  from  prison,  that  he 
was  on  a  legitimate  errand  on  the  night  of  his  arrest,  but  that  his  previous  record  and  a 
threatening  lecture  by  the  judge  intimidated  him  into  confessing  to  an  intent  to 
commit  the  crime  and  so  he  was  returned  to  state  prison  to  serve  another  four  years. 

The  next  two  are  also  felony  cases  reported  by  Dr.  Ordahl  from 
the  penitentiary  at  Joliet,  Illinois.2' 

An  example  of  crime  committed  because  of  accidental  circumstances  is  that  of 
a  laborer  who  had  lived  a  successful  life  and  was  supporting  a  home  and  family. 
He  had  some  bad  habits,  but  in  general  was  well  behaved.  He  was  attacked  by  an 
intoxicated  person,  and  in  the  light  that  ensued  his  assailant  was  killed.  He  was 
sentenced  for  manslaughter,  but  paroled  within  a  year. 

Another  example  is  that  of  a  young  locomotive  engineer  who,  on  a  holiday, 
became  partially  intoxicated  and  out  of  sheer  sport  made  a  bluff  with  two  other 
companions  at  holding  up  a  Chinaman.  He  was  sentenced  to  the  penitentiary  for  a 
term  of  from  one  to  ten  years.  This  prisoner  was  twenty-three  years  old,  had  a 
family  and  was  making  good  wages.  His  past  life  was  free  from  crime  and  his  habits 
generally  not  bad;  his  mentality  averaged  normal. 

Contrast  with  the  felony  cases  just  cited  the  following  accounts  of 
misdemeanants.  Ask  the  question  fairly,  which  group  of  offenders  is 
the  greater  meanace  to  the  safety  and  good  order  of  the  body  politic? 
The  first  two  are  reported  by  Mrs.  Solenberger  of  the  old  Chicago 

-  Mental  Hygiene,  2:  553. 

23  Journal  of  Delinquency,  1:15. 


86  THE  PASSING  OF  THE  COUNTY  JAIL 

Bureau  of  Chrities.    The  men  were  not  convicted  at  the  time  she  was 
dealing  with  them,  but  they  were  actually  violating  the  vagrancy 

law.24  ~ 

A  lad  who  was  a  member  of  a  tramp  family  became  paralyzed  when  five  years 
old.  Both  of  his  parents  begged  and  they  used  his  pitiful  condition  as  part  of  their 
stock  in  trade.  Very  early  in  life  he  himself  was  taught  to  beg  and  to  exhibit  his 
shriveled  leg  to  compel  pity.  He  was  never  sent  to  school,  never  trained  for  any 
business  but  begging.  This  lad  had  an  unusually  bright  mind,  as  well  as  a  sunny 
disposition  and  other  attributes  which,  if  he  could  have  received  different  training, 
might  have  assured  him  an  honorable  and  useful  position  in  life  in  spite  of  his  physical 
handicap.  But  at  seventeen,  the  age  when  he  first  came  to  the  attention  of  the 
Bureau,  he  was,  and  today  at  the  age  of  thirty-three  he  still  is,  a  most  accomplished 
and  successful  beggar,  and  one  who  refuses  to  consider  any  other  means  of  securing  a 
living  although  he  has  several  times  been  offered  opportunities  to  do  so. 

A.  B.  was  a  printer,  aged  35;  married  and  with  four  children.  He  had  a  good 
work  record  in  his  home  city;  he  drank  occasionally  but  not  to  excess  and  he  was 
paying  in  installments  for  a  home  of  his  own  when  his  wife,  quite  suddenly,  died. 
Being  unable  to  find  a  capable  housekeeper  he  soon  broke  up  his  home  and  placed 
his  children  in  institutions.  In  his  intolerable  loneliness  following  this  action,  he 
thought  he  would  be  happier  if  he  could  go  to  some  new  place  and  find  employment. 
He  set  out  with  this  intention,  but  failing  to  secure  work,  and  even  more  restless 
and  lonely  in  this  city  than  in  his  own,  he  went  on  to  another.  Still  not  finding  work 
he  went  to  a  third  city,  in  the  meantime  drinking  considerably  and  becoming  daily 
more  shabby  in  appearance.  When  his  money  was  exhausted  he  began  to  beat  his 
way  from  city  to  city,  constantly  associating  with  tramps  both  on  the  railroads  and 
in  the  cheap  lodging  houses.  Within  a  few  months  he  no  longer  even  made  a  pretense 
of  seeking  work  but  frankly  dropped  to  the  level  of  the  men  with  whom  he  traveled. 

When  we  knew  him  this  man  had  been  drifting  and  wandering  aimlessly  about 
the  country  for  four  years.  He  was  sodden  with  whiskey  and  so  degraded  physically, 
mentally,  and  morally  that  it  was  difficult  to  believe  that  he  had  ever  been  the  clean 
and  useful  citizen,  with  a  family  and  a  home  of  his  own,  which  correspondence  with 
his  home  city  proved  him  to  have  been  less  than  five  years  before. 

The  following  instance  is  given  by  Miss  Maude  E.  Miner,  Secre- 
tary of  the  New  York  Probation  and  Protective  Association.-'1 

Catherine  was  sixteen  years  old  when  her  mother  died,  leaving  her  in  care  of  a 
shiftless  father.  The  father's  stupidity  was  shown  by  his  ignorance  of  the  ages  and 
order  of  birth  of  his  children,  and  his  failure  to  remember  about  two  who  had  died 
in  infancy.  His  only  knowledge  of  his  family  was  that  three  brothers  had  met  violent 
deaths  and  that  his  parents  had  "just  died."  One  of  Catherine's  brothers  was 
described  as  "thick-headed";  and  a  sister,  eleven  years  old,  was  "slow  in  school" 


24  Solenberger,  Alice  Willard:     "One  Thousand  Homeless  Men."     New    York. 
1911.     Quotations  are  from  pp.  158,  211-213. 

Miner,  Maude  E.:    "Slavery  of  Prostitution."     New  York.      1916.     pp.  43-44. 


MISDEMEANANTS  AND  FELONS  87 

and  had  most  vulgar  sex  knowledge.  Within  a  week  after  his  wife's  death,  the 
father  had  put  the  younger  children  in  orphan  asylums,  had  told  the  oldest  boy  to 
leave  home  because  he  had  no  work  or  money  for  board,  and  had  turned  Catherine 
out  of  the  house.  Catherine  drifted  from  one  place  of  work  to  another  in  an  irre- 
sponsible manner  and  at  twenty-one  years  of  age,  became  a  tool  in  the  hands  of  her 
procurer-husband,  soliciting  for  him  on  the  streets  and  serving  as  his  accomplice  in 
stealing.  She  had  married  him  in  spite  of  knowing  that  he  had  marri< :d  hei  friend 
Vetta  two  or  three  years  before.  A  physical  examination  proved  that  Catherine 
was  suffering  from  syphilis,  and  a  mental  examination  showed  that  she  had  the 
intelligence  of  a  nine-year-old  child,  and  was  "slow,  dull,  stupid,  gross  and  careless." 

Here  we  have  as  felons:  (1)  a  man  "railroaded"  to  Sing  Sin'j; 
although  trying  to  lead  a  law-abiding  life,  (2)  a  laborer  of  ordinarily- 
good  habits  who  accidentally  killed  another,  (3)  an  engineer  who 
committed  "highway  robbery"  as  part  of  a  holiday  "lark."  As 
misdemeanants  we  have:  (1)  a  professional  beggar  who  refused  all 
opportunities  to  earn  an  honest  living,  (2)  an  habitual  wanderer, 
drunken  and  degraded,  (3)  a  feebleminded,  syphilitic  prostitute. 
Whic\of  these  groups  constitutes  the  greater  social  menace? 

It  is  not  claimed  that  all  felons  or  all  misdemeanants  are  of  the 
kinds  described  above.  All  we  wish  to  point  out  is  that  a  person  may 
by  reason  of  defective  mentality,  infectious  disease,  or  habits  of 
idleness,  wandering  or  inebriety,  be  constantly  endangering  the  safety 
or  health  of  others,  being  himself  a  social  parasite,  without  ever 
technically  violating  a  law  which  would  make  him  a  felon.  On  the 
other  hand,  a  person  may  become  a  felon  by  just  once  overstepping 
certain  bounds.  Some  misdemeanants  are  so  defective  mentally 
or  so  firmly  established  in  anti-social  attitudes  and  conduct  that  it  is 
doubtful  whether  anything  short  of  permanent  custodial  care  will 
suffice.  On  the  other  hand,  some  felons  have  such  good  mental  and 
physical  equipment,  so  well  fixed  habits  of  industry  and  sobriety  that 
it  is  altogether  reasonable  to  expect  them  to  become  good  citizens 
again  within  a  relatively  short  time. 

Similar  Characteristics  of  Misdemeanants  and  Felons 

Out  of  the  evidence  that  has  been  so  far  presented  two  ideas  seem 
to  stand  forth  rather  clearly.  There  is  nothing  inherent  in  any  act 
which  renders  it  a  misdemeanor  or  a  felony,  for  a  good  many  offenders 
are  found  in  both  categories.  Moreover,  a  felon  is  not  necessarily  a 
more  difficult  problem  nor  a  greater  source  of  danger  than  a  misde- 
meanant; in  fact,  the  emphasis  should  sometimes  be  reversed.     It 


88  THE  PASSING  OF  THE  COUNTY  JAIL 

remains  to  be  seen  whether  there  may  not  be  in  the  offenders  them- 
selves some  other  criterion  of  division,  some  justification  for  this 
classification.  To  anticipate — not  only  do  we  fail  to  find  any  such 
basis  of  separation;  on  the  contrary,  some  striking  similarities  appear. 
First  as  to  age: 

Ages  of  California  Prisoners,  191426 

County  Jails,  State  Prisons, 
Age  When  Received  1914  1914-15 

21  and  under 13%  11% 

22-29 31  37 

30-39 26  31 

40-49 17  14 

50  and  over 13  7 


Totals 100',  100% 

Not  only  is  there  very  little  difference  between  the  ages  of  these 
felons  and  misdemeanants,  but  such  differences  as  appear  are  the 
opposite  from  those  which  might  be  anticipated.  If  anyone  has 
harbored  the  opinion  that  misdemeanants  are  usually  younger  than 
felons,  and  should  be  separated  on  that  basis,  the  above  table  should 
remove  this  misapprehension. 

When  we  consider  the  matter  of  sex,  it  is  equally  clear  that  we  are 
not  dealing  with  a  basis  for  differentiation  of  misdemeanants  from 
felons.  This  appears  from  the  exceedingly  small  percentage  of 
women  in  both  groups. 

Percentage  of  Female  Offenders  Among  Felons  and  Misdemeanants" 

Percentage  of  females  among 
Prisoners  received  in — ■  Misdemeanants  Felons 

California  County  Jails,  1914 3.4 

California  City  Jails,  1914-15 5.8 

California  State  Prisons,  1914-15 

Ww  York  County  Penitentiaries,  1916-17 2.7 

New  York  County  Jails,  1916-17 6.0 

New  York  State  Prisons,  1916-17 

Rhode  Island  State  Workhouse,  1914-15 19.9 

Rhode  kland  State  Prison,  1914-15 

'■*  A  Study  in  County  Jails  in  California,     pp.  28-29. 

California  State  Board  of  Prison  Directors.     Report.     1916:47,  179. 

iii'ly  in  County  Jails  in  California.     26. 

State  Board  of  Charities  and  Corrections  (Cal.).     1916:  71. 

New  York  State  Commission  of  Prisons.     I'M 7:  404,  426,  354. 

Rhode  Island  Board  of  State  Chariti<    and  Corrections.     1915:87,  103. 


MISDEMEANANTS  AND  FELONS 


89 


This  table  shows  pretty  clearly  thai   the  number  of   women   is 

both  absolutely  and  relatively  greater  among  the  misdemeanant- 
than  among  the  felons.  But  there  is  certainly  no  justification  for 
making  sex  a  basis  for  distinguishing  between  misdemeanants  and 
felons. 

The  similarity  of  the  two  groups  continues  in  the  matter  of  nation- 
ality. 

Birthplace  of  California  Prisoners,  191423 

Birthplace                County  Jails  State  Prisons 

California 5,251       20%  536       19% 

Other  states 12,395      46%  1,376      48% 

Foreign  countries 9,142       34%  928       33% 

Totals 26,788     100%  2,840     100% 

Birthplaces  op  Chicago  Offenders,  1913s9 

Percentages  of  Misdemeanants  and  Felons  Belonging  to  Various  National  Groups 


MISDEMEANANTS 

FELONS 

Per  cent  distribu- 
tion of  male  per- 
sons  in   Chicago 
21  years  and  over 

Nationality 

Arrests 

Convic- 
tions 

Arrests 

Convic- 
tions 

American 

White 

58.5 

5.4 

36.1 

3.8 

1.4 

.2 

8.0 

1.8 
.3 
2.7 
3.4 
8.6 
3.3 
2.6 

59.6 

5.5 

34.9 

3.8 
1.3 

.2 
7.5 
2.4 

.3 
2.3 
3.4 
8.3 
3.3 
2.1 

56.3 

8.6 

35.1 

3.9 
1.6 

.2 
8.0 
1.4 

.2 
1.8 
3.8 
10.0 
2.1 
2.1 

56.9 

9.0 

34.1 

4.0 

2.0 

.3 

9.3 

.7 

.2 

2.5 

2.7 

8.4 

2.4 

1.6 

43.1 

Colored 

2.6 

Foreign 

54.3 

Austrians 

11.2 

English 

5.2 

French 

Germans 

12  6 

Greeks .  . 

.6 

Hollanders 

.7 

Irish 

4.4 

Italians 

3.2 

Russians 

8.5 

Scandinavians 

6.7 

Others 

1.2 

1-8. 


28  A  Study  in  County  Jails.     30-31 . 

California  State  Board  of  Prison  Directors.     Report.     1916:  45,  178. 

29  Abbott,  Grace:     "Immigration  and  Crime."     Delinquent.     Aug.,  1915.     pp. 


90  THE  PASSING  OF  THE  COUNTY  JAIL 

In  spite  of  some  interesting  variations,  it  may  be  stated  that  in 
general  each  national  and  racial  group  furnished  about  the  same 
percentage  of  felons  as  of  misdemeanants.  Again,  instead  of  a  possi- 
ble basis  of  distinction,  we  have  found  rather  striking  similarities. 

Marital  status  proves  no  more  available  as  a  basis  of  division  than 
age  or  sex.  Here  let  the  New  York  figures  stand  for  the  entire  situa- 
tion. 

Marital  Status  of  New  York  Offenders,  191530 
Percentage  of  married,  single  and  widowed  prisoners 

Married      Single    Widowed 

Total  received  from  courts 40  57  3  Total 

Transferred  to  state  and  extra-dept.  institutions  32  66  2  Felons 

Served  time  in  city  and  district  prisons 44  55  1  Msdmts. 

Sentenced  to  workhouses 36  58  8 

Apparently  there  were  more  married  folks  among  the  misdemean- 
ants than  among  the  felons,  but  the  difference  is  relatively  small. 
Moreover,  the  fact  that  family  desertion  is  a  felony  in  New  York  may 
possibly  account  for  a  good  many  prisoners'  claiming  to  be  single 
when  in  reality  they  have  wives  somewhere.  At  all  events  the  relative 
similarity  seems  of  more  significance  than  the  difference. 

When  we  come  to  occupation,  it  seems  that  there  is  a  considerably 
larger  percentage  of  unskilled  laborers  among  the  misdemeanants. 
It  is  impossible  to  say  how  marked  this  difference  really  is,  for  the 
methods  of  classification  are  so  dissimilar.  The  following  percentage 
table  for  California  offenders  shows  that  there  is  a  certain  difference, 
but  the  distribution  of  both  groups  among  a  wide  range  of  occupations 
makes  this  an  impractical  ground  of  distinction. 

Occupations  of  California  Prisoners,  19 1431 
Percentages  of  prisoners  in  various  occupational  groups 

County  Jails  State  Prisons 

Agricultural 4  4 

Professional 1  2 

Domestic  and  personal 9  15 

Trade  and  transportation 9  22 

Mining  and  fishing 3  2 

Manufacturing  and  mechanical 13  22 

Common  laborers 55  24 

Miscellaneous 6  9 

Totals 100  100 

80  New  York  City  Department  of  Correction.     1"15.  74. 
n  A  Study  in  County  Jails  in  California,     pp.  46-53. 
California  State  Ho;inl  of  Prison  Directors.     1916:49,  176. 


MISDEMEANANTS  AND  FELONS  91 

The  classification  of  felons  was  made  by  the  clerks  at  San  Quentin 
and  Folsom,  that  of  misdemeanants  by  the  writer.  In  the  latter  case 
a  good  many  prisoners  who  might  have  been  counted  in  some  other 
group  were  counted  as  common  laborers,  because  that  was  obviously 
where  they  belonged,  if  that  category  was  to  be  used  at  all.  The 
reason  for  its  use  is  its  presence  in  the  jail  registers,  and  the  absence 
of  more  definite  information  as  to  the  precise  work  in  which  the 
prisoners  had  been  engaged. 

Similar  statistics  of  other  states  have  been  studied.  The  following 
table  from  New  York  shows  a  somewhat  different  distribution. 

Occupations  of  New  York  Prisoners,  1915-191732 
Percentages  of  prisoners  in  various  occupational  groups 

City  Workhouses      State  Prisons 

Agricultural 0  4 

Professional 1  2 

Domestic  and  personal 34  13 

Trade  and  transportaion 13  19 

Manufacturing  and  mechanical 17  40 

Common  laborers 34  20 

Miscellaneous 1  2 

Totals 100  100 

Again  it  seems  that  unskilled  laborers  are  more  numerous  among 
the  misdemeanants,  but  without  knowing  the  precise  basis  of  classifi- 
cation in  each  case,  we  cannot  say  how  much  more  numerous  they 
are.  Furthermore,  it  is  pretty  clear  from  the  above  tables  that 
misdemeanants  as  well  as  felons  are  distributed  through  almost  all 
occupational  groups. 

Percentage  of  Known  Recidivists33 
In  various  institutions  for  misdemeanants  and  felons,  respectively 

Misdemeanants  Felons 

Allegheny  County  Workhouse 47 

Chicago  House  of  Correction 44 

Holmesburg  House  of  Correction ...     59 

Rhode  Island  State  Workhouse 50 

Sing  Sing 67 

San  Quentin 

32  New  York  State  Commission  of  Prisons.     1917:  373-376. 
New  York  City  Department  of  Correction.     1915:  57-64. 

33  Data  on  misdemeanants  taken  from  previous  chapter. 
Data  on  felons:   Mental  Hygiene,  2:  95. 

California  State  Board  of  Prison  Directors.     1916:  47. 


92  THE  PASSING  OF  THE  COUNTY  JAIL 

Recidivists  Committed  to  New  York  State  Prisons,  19 1734 

Actual  Per 

Previous  sentences  in:  Number  Cent 

Prisons  or  penitentiaries 1,022  34 

Reformatories 731  24 

Refuges,  jails,  workhouses 620  21 

Miscellaneous  institutions 35  1 

Total  recidivists 2,408  80 

On  the  surface  it  would  seem  that  a  larger  proportion  of  recidivists 
is  to  be  found  among  the  felons.  But  in  view  of  the  very  inadequate 
records  of  petty  offenders  this  is  by  no  means  certain.  We  can, 
however,  state  with  assurance  that  there  is  a  great  deal  of  recidivism 
in  both  groups  of  delinquents. 

If  we  undertake  to  compare  the  physical  condition  of  misdemean- 
ants with  that  of  felons,  we  must  base  our  conclusions  upon  data 
which  are  for  the  most  part  indefinite  and  incomplete.  However,  if 
we  should  study  the  report  of  Dr.  Stanley's  examination  of  1,000 
prisoners  at  San  Quentin,35  and  then  turn  to  Dr.  Sceleth's  report  as 
medical  superintendent  of  the  Chicago  House  of  Correction,36  we 
would  be  convinced  of  this  much;  viz.,  that  there  is  need  for  many 
different  sorts  of  medical  and  surgical  care  of  misdemeanants  and 
felons  alike.  More  than  that  is  hardly  justified  in  view  of  our  limited 
information. 

The  data  concerning  the  mentality  of  delinquents  are  perhaps 
more  numerous,  but  here  the  bases  of  judgment  are  so  various  that 
we  should  hesitate  to  draw  hasty  conclusions.  In  the  last  chapter  we 
called  attention  to  several  reports  which  show  that  there  is  a  consider- 
able percentage  of  mental  deviates  among  misdemeanants.  ll 
remains  to  examine  the  situation  among  the  felons.  In  Dr.  Glueck's 
study  of  608  admissions  to  Sing  Sing  he  found  59%  mentally  abnor- 
mal in  some  respect.37     Dr.  Edith  R.  Spaulding's  examination  of  400 

34  New  York  State  Commission  of  Prisons.     1917:  .377. 

35  California  State  Hoard  of  Prison  Directors.     1916:  96-101. 
x  Chicago  House  of  Correction.     1017:  S4-44. 

Mental  Hygiene,  2:  85-1 39. 
These  defa  tives  were  distributed  as  follows:    mentally  diseased  or  deteriorated 
1 1' , .  intellectually  defective  28%,  psychopathic  19* ,..     In  the  table  which  follows,  we 
have  eliminated  the  second  group  so  as  not  to  include  borderline  and  other  doubtful 
case  . 


MISDEMEANANTS  AND  FELONS  93 

inmates  of  the  Massachusetts  Reformatory  for  Women  showed  nearly 
17%  morons  and  another  27%  subnormal.38  Similar  studies  have 
been  made  by  Dr.  and  Mrs.  Ordahl  at  Joliet,3'J  Dr.  Haines  at  the 
Ohio  State  Penitentiary,40  Dr.  Terman  and  Knollin  at  San  Quentin.41 
As  to  the  last,  the  classification  of  155  "unselected  subjects"  was  as 
follows: 

Feebleminded 27  17.4% 

Borderzone 20  12.9 

Dull-normal 39  25 . 2 

Average-normal 59  38 . 0 

Superior 8  5.2 

Very  superior 2             1.3 

Totals 155         100.0% 

Relative  Number  of  Defectives  Reported  from  Studies  of  Misdemeanants 

and  Felons42 

Percentage  of  defectives  among  offenders  studied 

.Misdemeanants        Felons 

Columbus  (Ohio)  Workhouse 33% 

An  Ohio  Workhouse" 29-59 

Philadelphia  House  of  Correction. .       33 

Sing  Sing  (New  York) 31-59% 

Massachusetts   Reformatory   for 

Women 17-44 

Joliet  (Illinois) 19-67 

San  Quentin  (California) 17-30 

This  table  cannot  in  the  nature  of  the  case  be  satisfactory,  because 
the  standards  of  measurement  differ  so  greatly.  But,  crude  though  it 
be,  it  serves  to  emphasize  the  fact  that  mental  ability  will  not  suffice 
as  a  basis  for  distinction  between  misdemeanants  and  felons. 


38  Journal  of  Criminal  Law,  5:  704-717. 

39  Delinquent.     Sept.,  1915:  1-6. 

Journal  of  Delinquency,  1:  1-21.     2:  331-351. 

40  Journal  of  Criminal  Law,  7:  702-721. 

41  Surveys  in  Mental   Deviation  in  California.     State  Board  of  Charities  and 
Corrections.     1918.     6-19. 

a  For  sources  of  data  on  misdemeanors  see  Chapter  III.     Data  on  felons  cited 
above. 


94  THE  PASSING  OF  THE  COUNTY  JAIL 

The  conclusion  that  seems  to  emerge  pretty  clearly  from  the 
evidence  submitted  may  be  stated  paradoxically.  Felons  and  misde- 
meanants are  very  much  alike,  and  yet  each  individual  is  different 
from  every  other.  Whether  we  classify  them  according  to  age,  sex, 
marital  status,  birthplace,  occupation,  recidivism  or  mental  condi- 
tion, we  find  no  very  significant  differences  in  distribution.  Minor 
differences  do  appear,  for  example,  in  occupation  and  mental  rating. 
But  while  it  is  possible  that  there  are  more  skilled  workmen  among  the 
felons,  there  are  also  many  common  laborers;  on  the  other  hand, 
there  are  professional  men  and  artizans  among  the  misdemeanants. 
While  the  average  native  ability  of  misdemeanants  may  be  lower 
than  that  of  felons,  a  considerable  proportion  of  the  former  rate  higher 
than  the  average  of  the  latter.  All  in  all,  we  find  many  reasons  for 
emphasizing  their  common  humanity  and  individual  differences.  We 
find  in  personal  characteristics  no  adequate  basis  for  classification  as 
misdemeanants  and  felons. 

The  Same  Man  Now  a  Misdemeanant,  Now  a  Felon,  Without 
Fundamental  Change  in  Himself 

Statistical  evidence  is  available,  wherever  suitable  records  are 
kept,  to  the  effect  that  many  offenders  are  at  one  time  misdemean- 
ants, at  other  times  felons.  Thus  the  1917  report  of  the  New  York 
State  Commission  of  Prisons  shows  that  out  of  2430  recidivists,  187 
had  previously  been  confined  in  refuges,  162  in  jails,  274  in  work- 
houses.43 Bonger  cites  Austrian  figures  comparing  the  proportion  of 
convicts  previously  convicted  of  a  misdemeanor  or  contravention 
with  those  found  guilty  of  felonies.44 

Out  of  case  histories  we  learn  not  only  that  the  same  person  may 
be  now  a  misdemeanant,  now  a  felon,  but  in  addition  that  he  is  all  the 
while  about  the  same  sort  of  a  human  being.45  A  hitherto  unpub- 
lished case  record  illustrates  this  fact  admirably.  We  are  indebted 
for  it  to  Paul  Wander,  formerly  associated  with  Dr.  Glueck,  as 
sociologist  in  the  Psychiatric  Clinic  at  Sing  Sing. 

43  Page  377  of  the  report  cited. 

**  Bonger,  W.  A.:  "Criminality  and  Economic  Conditions."  Translated  by 
Henry  P.  Horton.     Boston.     1916.     Page  522. 

44  See  cases  presented  by: 

Glueck  in  the  Delinquent.     Feb.,  1918:  6-10.     March,  1918:  1-11. 
Haines  in  the  Journal  of  Delinquency,  1:  171-186. 
Kirchwey  in  Journal  of  Criminal  Law,  M:.<27-340. 


MISDEMEANANTS  AND  FELONS  95 


Job  a  no  Matthkw  C 


I  lie  ancestors  of  Job  and  Matthew  C ,  known  in  the  region  as  of  "moun- 

tineer"  stock,  have  for  more  than  five  generations  lived  as  squatters  in  the  Ramapo 
Hills  of  New  York  State.  The  men  are  characterized  as  rugged,  powerful  of  physique, 
and  generally  free  from  disease.  Their  habitations  were  crude  shacks  in  remote 
mountain  pockets,  and  their  chief  occupations  chopping  cordwood,  cutting  timber 
and  bark,  weaving  baskets,  and  carving  scoops,  ladles  and  similar  domestic  imple- 
ments obtained  in  the  forest.  When  the  heavy  timber  was  gone,  and  the  brickyards 
which  they  had  been  supplying  with  fuel  began  to  substitute  oil  for  wood,  and  the 
village  store  no  longer  traded  provisions  for  their  baskets  and  trays,  their  principal 
source  of  livelihood  failed  and  idleness  and  strong  drink  supervening  induced  wide- 
spread degeneracy  among  them.  The  farmers  of  the  region  made  and  fermented 
"applejack"  in  large  quantities  and  dispensed  it  with  calculated  liberality  among  their 
helpers  at  harvest  time.  Drunkenness  became  endemic  among  the  C,  who  have 
been  notorious  for  their  intemperance  ever  since.     .     .     . 

The  mother  on  account  of  her  own  obvious  limitations  has  exerted  only  the 
most  feeble  influence  on  the  intellectual  and  moral  development  of  Job  and  Matthew. 
Indeed,  by  virtue  of  her  ignorance  and  superstition  she  has  been  at  least  indirectly 
responsible  for  their  highly  irregular  school  attendance,  their  social  isolation  and 
retardation,  their  industrial  inefficiency,  and  their  moral  immaturity.  The  same 
general  indictment  applies  to  the  father  as  well,  whose  gentle,  easy-going  manner 
and  lack  of  firmness  disqualified  him  for  the  exercise  of  necessary  parental  authority. 

Job  is  described  as  tractable  and  docile  and  easily  governed,  while  Matthew 
was  inclined  to  rough  fun,  "cutting  up,"  and  lawlessness,  especially  outside  the  home. 
Neither  played  much:  Job  less  than  Matthew,  nor  did  they  mingle  freely  with  other 
boys  of  the  neighborhood.  Job  was  quiet  and  somewhat  seclusive,  Matthew  more 
lively  and  sociable.  They  found  few  companions  among  their  schoolfellows  and  seem 
to  have  made  no  fast  friends.  Being  required  by  their  parents  to  work  from  early 
childhood,  they  had  little  time  for  play,  and  what  they  had  they  spent  at  home. 
Among  strangers,  especially  among  those  of  higher  social  and  mental  grade,  they 
have  always  felt  ill-at-ease  and  awkward,  and  apparently  for  this  reason  Matthew 
preferred  the  uncritical  society  of  children  younger  than  himself. 

Aside  from  being  backward  and  bashful  in  manner,  Job  and  Matthew  were 
unattractive  to  other  children  by  reason  of  their  neglected  if  not  disreputable  appear- 
ance and  uncouth  speech,  and  were  avoided  and  looked  down  upon  by  most  of  their 
schoolmates  and  neighbors  as  belonging  to  the  despised  "mountaineer"  folk.  Matthew, 
in  particular,  felt  the  force  of  this  ostracism  at  school,  and  neither  he  nor  Job  was 
admitted  to  any  genuine  association  with  children  from  families  of  more  progressive 
standards  of  living  and  culture.  As  a  natural  consequence  they  turned  for  the 
satisfaction  of  their  sociability  needs  to  their  own  poor  kinship  circle. 

The  family  has  never  known  a  fixed  abode.  For  generations  the  ancestors, 
including  the  parents  of  Job  and  Matthew,  squatted  in  mountain  pockets  until 
dislodged  by  the  passing  of  the  woodland  into  private  ownership  in  the  form  of  large 
estates.  Within  the  lifetime  of  Job  and  Matthew  alone  the  family  has  migrated 
some  twenty  times.     .     .     . 


96  THE  PASSING  OF  THE  COUNTY  JAIL 

Their  usual  habitations  were  rough  shacks,  sometimes  constructed  by  them- 
selves, and  providing  most  unsanitary  and  unwholesomely  congested  quarters. 
Except  in  one  or  two  instances,  where  the  family  temporarily  occupied  as  many  as 
three  or  four  rooms,  they  have  never  enjoyed  decent  privacy  or  essential  sanitary 
and  household  conveniences.  Bathtubs,  water-closets,  running  water,  have  been 
practically  unknown  luxuries  at  all  times.  All  water  has  to  be  carried;  sometimes 
long  distances.     Toilet  facilities  are  most  primitive.     .     .     . 

Even  though  the  family  denies  having  suffered  acute  want  for  any  length  of 
time,  they  admitted  that  "it  took  all  they  could  earn  to  keep  alive,"  and  there  is 
abundant  evidence  pointing  to  a  chronic  state  of  want,  a  wretched  hand-to-mouth 
existence,  a  constant  tendency  to  undernutrition,  and  periodic  semi-starvation. 
And  this  abiding  condition  of  poverty  may  fairly  be  set  down  as  due  less  to  their 
industrial  inefficiency  and  correspondingly  low  wages  as  such,  than  to  their  prevailing 
shiftlessness  and  improvident  habits,  and  their  lack  of  economic  intelligence. 

On  several  occasions,  under  severe  economic  stress,  the  family  or  some  of  its 
members  have  so  far  overcome  their  native  inertia  as  to  migrate  in  search  of  an 
improved  livelihood.  Usually  they  have  followed  the  invitation  of  relatives  estab- 
lished elsewhere,  who  have  reported  better  wages  or  opportunities  of  employment. 
In  several  instances,  on  the  other  hand,  notably  in  recent  years,  they  have  been 
tided  over  periods  of  special  hardship  by  securing  credit  from  their  employers.  Any 
other  available  sources  of  relief,  both  private  and  public,  have  been  utilized,  though 
not  until  absolutely  necessary  to  maintain  existence.     .     .     . 

The  brothers  have  found  their  pleasures  chiefly  and  almost  solely  in  hunting, 
fishing  and  strong  drink,  the  last  of  these  seeming  to  yield  them  the  keenest  satis- 
faction of  all.  They  derived  genuine  enjoyment  out  of  getting  thoroughly  soused, 
and  called  this  experience  "having  a  good  time."  They  rarely  applied  themselves 
to  hunting  or  fishing  with  sufficient  zest  to  depend  upon  it  largely  for  food:  seemed 
to  lack  the  necessary  power  of  concentration  even  in  this  direction  of  their  primary 
play  interests.  Incidental  to  their  quest  for  game  or  liquor,  they  also  exhibited  a 
taste  for  roving,  but  they  seldom  absented  themselves  from  home  for  more  than  a 
day  or  two  at  a  time.  A  predilection  for  "loafing"  is  also  to  be  noted.  Job  and 
Matthew  and  their  older  brothers  were  practically  confined  for  their  sociable  pleasures 
to  loitering  and  drinking  with  other  idle  men  and  boys.  For  the  sake  of  this  diversion 
they  would  often  leave  their  work  in  the  middle  of  the  week,  and  on  the  pretext  of 
poing  hunting  or  of  buying  groceries  in  the  village  would  spend  their  money  on  beer 
and  whiskey,  usually  returning  home  drunk.  They  consistently  refrained  from 
attending  any  parties,  dances,  picnics,  or  neighborhood  gatherings  of  any  kind: 
partly,  no  doubt,  owing  to  their  lack  of  presentable  clothing,  but  in  part  also  becau  r 
of  their  inherent  lack  of  sociability  and  their  general  unpopularity.  They  are  said  to 
feel  no  desire  for  such  forms  of  recreation,  nor  for  motion  pictures,  of  which  the)' 
have  seen  but  few:  doubtless  a  case  of  sour  grapes.  They  know  nothing  of  theatres, 
concerts,  books,  pictures,  and  next  to  nothing  of  magazines  and  newspapers.  The 
only  trace  of  the  aesthetic  appears  in  Matthew,  who  is  credited  with  a  fondness  for 
making  music  on  a  harmonica.      .     .     . 

The  family  standards  ind  morals  in  sex  matters  arc  so  la\  that  it  is  difficult  to 
speak  of  spe  ifii  i   immorality.     The  men,  i.e.,  the  young  nun  of  (Ik-  family, 


MISDEMEANANTS  AND  FELONS  97 

arc  said  to  cohabit,  largely  regardless  of  marriage  tics,  with  women  of  their  own 
blood,  and  sometimes  with  girls  as  young  as  13  and  14.  When  a  child  is  born,  they 
may  arrange  either  voluntarily  or  by  order  of  court  to  cover  up  the  illegitimacy  by 
formal  marriage,  and  cases  of  bigamy  are  not  unknown.  The  women,  especially 
the  feebleminded  ones,  arc  quite  as  loose  as  the  men.  The  presence  of  those  of  their 
children  who  were  born  out  of  wedlock  cannot  but  affect  unhappily  the  moral  tone 
of  their  home  life,  although  there  seems  to  be  no  clear  consciousness  of  wrong  on  the 
part  of  the  parent.  Little  definite  information  can  be  gained  regarding  the  sex  life 
or  habits  of  Job  and  Matthew,  who  seem  on  the  whole  to  have  had  little  contact 
of  any  sort  with  women  not  of  their  own  kin. 

The  scholastic  career  of  Job  and  Matthew  was  irregular  and  abortive.  Job 
seems  to  have  attended  school  between  the  ages  of  12  and  14 — somewhat  over  two 
terms.  Matthew  entered  at  8  or  10  and  continued  with  numerous  interruptions  up 
to  16.     .     .     . 

Although  Job's  presence  in  school  was  relatively  brief,  it  was  sufficient  to  demon- 
strate his  inability  to  progress  in  the  primary  grades:  he  has  never  learned  to  read  or 
write  even  his  own  name.  They  are  said  to  have  forgotten  from  one  day  to  the  next 
what  they  were  taught  in  school.  They  learned  to  copy  the  letters  of  the  alphabet, 
but  not  to  read  them  when  written,  nor  to  use  them  independently  in  words.  Matthew 
likes  to  scrawl  and  draw  and  is  considered  something  of  a  penman.  He  reached  the 
third  reader  by  the  age  of  16,  while  Job  is  believed  by  some  to  have  attained  to  the 
second  reader.  Needless  to  say,  neither  betrayed  any  positive  interest  or  aptitude 
in  school  except  as  noted  above  in  the  case  of  Matthew.  As  to  their  mathematical 
ability,  one  saloonkeeper  affirms  that  they  are  apt  to  accept  whatever  change  is 
returned  to  them  without  verifying  the  amount.  It  appears  that  their  teachers, 
while  in  general  kindly  and  encouraging  with  reference  to  the  material  and  social 
handicaps  of  Job  and  Matthew,  were  inclined  to  be  apathetic  toward  their  intellectual 
difficulties,  probably  from  a  recognition  of  these  as  insuperable  defects.     .     .     . 

Job  and  Matthew  have  never  acquired  any  specialized  occupation  or  industrial 
proficiency,  but  may  be  classed  as  agricultural  laborers,  most  of  their  wage-earning 
lives  having  been  spent  on  the  farm.  They  began  to  work  casually  for  pay  as  quite 
young  children:  "almost  as  early  as  they  could  walk"  they  were  employed  picking 
strawberries  in  the  field  at  25  cents  and  up  per  day.  But  not  until  the  age  of  10  or 
12  did  they  work  with  any  regularity  for  wages.  Matthew  worked  considerably 
while  still  at  school,  assisting  his  elders  on  the  farm.  Beginning  with  50  cents  as  a 
day's  wage,  they  advanced  by  the  time  of  reaching  maturity  to  SI. 50  per  day,  or 
nearly  the  current  rate  of  agricultural  wages.  Now  and  then  they  have  earned  as 
high  as  $2.00  and  $2.25  per  day  while  employed  on  the  state  highway,  erecting  fences 
for  the  railroad,  shoveling  coal  from  cars,  etc.  But  not  being  adapted  to  such  labor 
on  account  of  its  orderly  and  continuous  character,  they  rarely  followed  it  for  more 
than  a  few  days  together.  They  either  lost  such  employment  through  drunkenness 
and  irregularity  in  attendance,  or  were  discharged  on  being  discovered  soldiering,  or 
abandoned  it  as  too  exacting.  They  have  held  no  industrial  employment  long 
enough  to  gain  skill  or  advancement  in  it  or  to  accumulate  savings.  The  more 
primitive  routine  of  farm  and  orchard,  including  as  winter  chores  woodchopping, 
trimming  trees,  clearing  brush,  marked  the  level  of  their  industrial  capacity.     .     .     . 


98  THE  PASSING  OF  THE  COUNTY  JAIL 

A  search  for  criminalistic  antecedents  in  Job  and  Matthew's  history  fails  to 
reveal  any  unambiguous  evidence  of  an  inherent  disposition  to  criminal  conduct  of 
the  type  of  which  they  have  been  convicted.  So  completely  foreign  to  their  normal 
character  and  behavior  appeared  the  act  of  the  murder  of  Henry  Danziger,  with  the 
brutal  mutilation  accompanying  it,  that  those  who  have  been  in  a  position  to  be 
most  familiar  with  the  everyday  temper  of  the  two  found  difficulty  in  believing  them 
guilty.  But  certain  traits,  tendencies,  circumstances,  by  no  means  all  of  which  were 
admitted  as  evidence  at  the  trial,  throw  at  least  an  indirect  light  upon  that  otherwise 
anomalous  event.  In  the  first  place,  as  is  admitted  by  the  district  attorney  in 
private  conversation,  both  were  "soused"  when  they  committed  the  deed.  They 
would  never,  in  the  private  opinion  of  the  trial  judge,  have  committed  or  conceived 
of  this  murder,  but  for  their  profoundly  intoxicated  condition  (in  recognition  of 
which  fact  Judge  Tompkins  saw  fit  to  commute  the  verdict  of  first  degree  murder 
to  one  of  second  degree).  There  was  neither  plan  nor  premeditation  nor  any  rational 
motive  involved  in  the  act.  It  is  supposed  that,  staggering  home  from  a  carouse  and 
meeting  the  old  man,  a  stranger,  said  to  be  of  a  sour  disposition,  on  the  road,  they 
struck  him  upon  provocation  of  some  kind,  and  frightened  by  what  they  had  done, 
pursued  him  into  the  woods  and  finished  him  with  the  barrel  of  Job's  gun.  In  any 
case,  the  crime  was  perpetrated  in  a  fit  of  madness,  with  Matthew  probably  playing 
a  primary  and  Job  an  accessory  role,  though  both  were  jointly  and  immediately 
implicated. 

It  appears  that  Job  directly  afterwards  broke  down  and  cried  like  a  child,  this 
reaction  being  not  uncommon  with  him  when  he  is  in  trouble.  It  is  known,  moreover, 
that  he  had  eaten  no  regular  meal  for  over  24  hours  preceding  the  crime,  and  that 
the  four  glasses  of  beer  and  pint  of  whiskey  taken  on  an  empty  stomach  had  weakened 
not  only  his  powers  of  inhibition  but  his  powers  of  independent  locomotion  as  well. 

Alongside  of  Job's  phlegmatic  and  surly  disposition,  accentuated  by  the  influence 
of  alcohol,  we  have  Matthew's  tendency  to  mischief  and  aggression,  similarly  exag- 
gerated by  drink.  It  is  admitted  by  the  family  and  borne  out  by  the  statements  of 
saloonkeepers  that  under  liquor  Matthew's  childish  and  playful  manner  would  readily 
change  to  one  of  boisterousness  and  folly,  and  that  further  irritation  or  offense  might 
render  him  positively  violent  and  dangerous.  This  underlying  "temper"  occasionally 
came  to  the  surface  even  in  the  absence  of  intoxication,  as  was  shown  by  the  case  of 
his  savage  attack  on  his  school  fellows  at  Haven;  but  it  never  assumed  so  vicious  a 
character  as  to  indicate  criminality.  Job,  on  the  other  hand,  while  slower  to  anger, 
is  said  to  be  even  more  ferocious  when  aroused.  According  to  a  very  old  man  who 
was  personally  acquainted  with  their  ancestors  for  several  generations,  while  all 
these  were  heavy  drinkers  and  fist-fights  and  drunken  brawls  were  not  uncommon 
among  them,  none  are  known  to  have  committed  deeds  of  violence  and  aggression. 
An  isolated  incident  reported  of  Riley,  the  father,  who  is  said  in  a  drunken  rage  to 
have  thrown  an  axe  at  his  son,  Sheridan,  has  not  been  verified  and  can  scarcely  be  used. 

Such  minor  offenses  against  law  and  public  peace  as  would  constitute  the  criminal 
record  of  Job  and  Matthew,  seem  in  almost  every  case  complicated  if  not  induced  by 
intoxication.  While  exceedingly  undignified,  their  conduct  in  the  village  was  for 
the  mo  I   part  sufficiently  peaceful  not   to  land  them  in  the  local  jail  for  disorderly 

conduct.    The  Justice  of  the   Peace  of  S admits  having  heard  complaints 


MISDEMEANANTS  AND  FELONS  99 

about  them,  but  remembers  no  arrest  on  this  score  having  been  made.  The  attorney, 
however,  who  conducted  Job's  defense  in  the  murder  trial,  recalls  one  instance  of 
Job  being  locked  up  over  night  for  boisterous  conduct  while  drunk.  Outside  the 
village,  at  any  rate,  they  were  known  to  have  quarreled  among  themselves,  while 
intoxicated,  and  once  fought  a  bloody  battle  with  rocks  on  the  public  highway. 
When  alone  among  strangers  they  were  inclined  to  be  timid  and  gentle,  but  in  the 
company  of  their  kind,  and  especially  after  drinking,  would  tend  to  grow  bold, 
aggressive,  and  lawless  in  their  relations  to  outsiders,  ready  to  annoy  neighbors  of 
like  social  station  or  even  to  do  them  injury.  One  inoffensive  old  man  in  particular 
a  mountaineer  like  themselves,  seems  to  have  been  their  favorite  victim.  He  en- 
deavored not  to  give  unnecessary  provocation  but  on  the  contrary  to  avoid  them 
when  they  appeared  intoxicated.  According  to  his  story,  he  one  day  met  Matthew 
on  the  road  with  one  E.  Without  any  warning  or  apparent  reason,  Matthew,  who 
was  drunk,  struck  the  old  man  a  violent  blow  behind  the  ear,  almost  knocking  him 
down,  and  was  only  restrained  by  his  companion  from  doing  further  harm. 

The  only  recorded  case  of  overt  conflict  with  the  law  prior  to  the  murder  is  one 
of  disorderly  conduct  tried  in  June  of  last  year  by  the  local  Justice  of  the  Peace. 
Had  this  case  been  handled  by  the  authorities  with  proper  energy  and  intelligence, 
Job  and  Matthew  would  have  been  charged  with  felonious  assault  and  promptly 
convicted.  According  to  all  reports,  they  went  to  L.  in  quest  of  a  pint  of  whiskey 
on  a  Sunday  evening,  in  company  with  one  E.,  a  feebleminded  young  alcoholic, 
whom  they  commissioned  to  secure  the  whiskey  for  them  at  F.'s  saloon,  giving  him  a 
quarter  to  pay  for  it.  When  E.  returned  without  whiskey  or  money,  they  set  upon 
him  and  beat  and  bruised  him  unmercifully.  Wrhen  haled  into  court  the  next  day, 
they  were  accompanied  by  nearly  a  dozen  kinsmen,  all  of  whom  swore  that  they  had 
been  at  home  and  in  bed  at  the  time  this  assault  had  taken  place.  The  injured  man 
having  no  witnesses,  the  perjured  alibi  of  the  defense  was  accepted  and  the  case 
dismissed.  Since  then  Riley,  the  father,  has  admitted  to  the  deputy-sheriff  that 
Job  and  Matthew  did  that  deed.  It  is  believed  that  they  were  in  liquor  when  they 
did  it,  and  the  circumstances  of  their  victim's  defencelessness  is  likewise  significant. 

Many  times  in  their  life  these  two  men  might  have  been  arrested 
and  convicted  of  misdemeanors:  drunkenness  in  public  places,  sid- 
orderly  conduct,  vagrancy,  assault.  At  least  twice  such  arrests  were 
made;  both  times  the  case  was  dismissed,  although  there  is  no  dispute 
as  to  the  fact  of  guilt.  When  finally  they  were  found  guilty  of  a 
felony,  it  was  not  due  to  any  important  change  in  the  men  themselves, 
but  because  they  happened  to  perform  an  overt  act  which  is  punish- 
able by  death  or  by  imprisonment  in  the  state  prison.  At  any  time 
previous  to  this  they  might  have  committed  a  felony,  had  circum- 
stances been  only  a  little  different.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  conceiv- 
able that  in  a  slightly  different  combination  of  events  they  might 
never  have  become  felons.    But  all  of  the  time  they  would  have  been 


100  THE  PASSING  OF  THE  COUNTY  JAIL 

what  they  are:  comparatively  insensitive  and  underdeveloped 
morally  and  deficient  mentally;  as  harmless  as  they  are  worthless 
while  sober,  and  a  distinct  public  nuisance  when  drunk. 

Common  sense  and  every-day  experience  bear  out  the  opinion 
that  the  offender  who  is  rated  today  as  a  misdemeanant,  tomorrow  as 
a  felon,  probably  has  undergone  no  important  change.  Thus  a  prosti- 
tute is  frequently  arrested  on  a  vagrancy  charge- — as  such  she  is 
a  misdemeanant.  If  perchance  the  charge  be  that  of  selling  liquor 
without  a  license,  or  "soliciting,"  she  is  still  a  misdemeanant.  But  if 
she  should  steal  a  gold  watch  from  one  of  her  "customers,"  she  would 
be  a  felon.  What  the  present  legal  classification  blinks  at  is  that 
she  is  primarily  a  sex  offender,  probably  a  center  of  infection,  perhaps 
mentally  abnormal;  and  that  she  is  this,  quite  regardless  of  whether 
the  particular  overt  act  which  immediately  preceded  and  led  to  her 
arrest  happened  to  be  classified  as  a  misdemeanor  or  as  a  felony. 

Economic  Argument  for  Abolishing  the  Distinction  Between 
Felons  and  Misdemeanants 

We  have  seen  that  the  classification  of  offenders  as  felons  and 
misdemeanants  grew  out  of  an  historical  situation  which  no  longer 
exists.  We  have  sought  in  vain  for  any  element  in  the  present  situa- 
tion which  would  render  its  continuance  necessary  or  desirable.  We 
have  found  it  a  source  of  confusion  in  our  thinking  about  delinquents. 
There  is  a  more  immediate  way  in  which  it  may  interfere  increasingly 
with  the  most  effective  treatment  of  offenders. 

It  is  coming  to  be  more  and  more  agreed  that  it  is  desirable  to 
apply  the  principle  of  individualization  to  misdemeanants  as  well 
as  to  felons.  If,  now,  we  continue  to  handle  offenders  in  two  separate 
i  lasses,  we  must  apply  this  principle  through  two  sets  of  institutions. 
If  the  handling  of  misdemeanants  should  be  taken  over  by  the  state, 
which  seems  likely  in  view  of  present  tendencies,  it  would  mean  two 
sets  of  state  institutions,  a  double  correctional  system  for  adults. 
Roughly  speaking,  to  attain  a  given  degree  of  individualization  or 
specialization,  this  will  make  necessary  twice  as  many  institutions, 
and  probably  the  expenditure  of  a  good  deal  more  money  than  would 
be  required  if  there  were  a  unified  correctional  system.  Or,  approach- 
ing it  from  the  other  side,  the  same  number  of  institutions  and  the 


MISDEMEANANTS    \M>  FELONS  101 

same  expenditure  of  money,  in  a  unified  system,  would  make  possible 
a  much  higher  degree  of  specialization  and  individualization.  In 
other  words,  the  economical  application  of  the  principle  of  individual- 
ization to  misdemeanants  (or  to  offenders  in  general)  requires  the 
abolition  of  the  ancient  distinction  between  felons  and  misdemean- 
ants. 


CHAPTER  V 

A  Basis  for  Individualization 

In  our  study  of  various  ways  of  handling  misdemeanants  we  dis- 
covered a  pretty  definite  tendency  toward  individualization.  In 
studying  the  misdemeanants  themselves  we  found  a  reason  for  this  in 
the  fact  that  each  offender  seems  to  be  more  or  less  different  from 
every  other.  Our  examination  of  the  classification  of  delinquents 
into  two  groups — misdemeanants  and  felons — lent  further  strength 
to  the  idea  that  practise  as  well  as  theory  demands  attention  to  the 
fact  of  individual  variation.  However,  we  have  also  had  a  hint  that 
practical  application  of  this  outstanding  principle  will  be  no  simple 
matter.  In  order  to  solve  this  last  difficulty  it  seems  necessary  to  set 
forth  as  definitely  as  we  can  just  what  we  mean  by  individualization. 
Clearness  on  this  point  is  fundamental,  if  we  are  to  work  out  a  con- 
structive program  which  is  to  be  anything  more  than  a  "rehash"  of 
those  already  described. 

The  Fact  of  Individual  Differences 

If  we  could  adequately  describe  each  of  a  million  human  beings — if,  for  each 
one,  we  would  prophesy  just  what  his  response  would  be  to  every  possible  situation 
of  life — the  million  men  would  be  found  to  differ  widely.  Probably  no  two  out  of 
the  million  would  be  so  alike  in  mental  nature  as  to  be  indistinguishable  by  one  who 
knew  their  entire  natures.  Each  has  an  individuality  which  marks  him  off  from  other 
men.  Each  has  not  only  a  mind,  the  mind  of  the  human  species,  but  also  his  own 
specialized,  particular,  readily  distinguishable  mind.  Even  in  bodily  nature,  indeed, 
men  differ  so  much  that  it  would  be  hard  to  find,  amongst  a  million,  two  whose 
features  are  just  alike,  who  are  equally  susceptible  to  every  disease,  who  have  identical 
bodily  habits.    The  differences  in  intellect  and  character  are  Ear  greater. 

The  study  of  the  facts  and  laws  applicable  (o  all  men  by  virtue  of  their  common 
humanity  gives  us  fundamental  rules  for  the  control  of  changes  in  intellect  and 
.-haracter.  The  study  of  the  facts  and  laws  of  individual  differences  enables  us  to 
apply  these  principles  economically  in  the  case  of  each  individual  whom  we  seek  to 
influence.     .     .     . 

I  lie  customary  view  has  been  thai  "t)  pes"  <>r  particular  combinations  of  amounts 

of  human  traits  could  be  found  so  that  any  individual  would  be  much  like  some 

type  and  miK  li  less  like  any  of  the  others.     Hut  no  one  has  succeeded  in  finding 

ii'  b  t  .  p'    ,  and  the  more  clearly  the  supposed  types  an  defined,  the  surer  it  becomes 

102 


A  BASIS  FOR  INDIVIDUALIZATION  103 

that  intermediate  conditions,  equally  like  several  of  the  types  exist  in  great  numbers. 
Either  new  types  have  to  be  added  until  there  are  so  many  that  one  may  as  well 
let  each  individual  be  his  own  type;  or  the  number  of  individuals  not  falling  readily 
under  any  type  is  so  large  that  the  attempt  to  classify  men  by  them  hinders  rather 
than  helps  thought  and  practical  control.  Only  very  rarely  can  anything  approaching 
at  all  closely  to  an  accurate  and  adequate  account  of  a  man's  individuality  be  given 
by  the  statement  that  he  is  of  this  or  that  "type." 

In  fact,  there  is  much  reason  to  believe  that  human  individualities  do  not  represent 
ten  or  a  hundred  or  a  thousand  types,  but  either  one  single  type  or  as  many  types  as 
there  are  individuals,  according  to  whether  the  thinker  wishes  to  emphasize  the  common 
humanity  around  which  they  vary  or  the  exact  nature  of  their  variations  from  it. 
By  this  view  the  effort  to  assign  individuals  to  a  number  of  classes,  as  we  assign 
animals  to  the  classes  "mammals,"  "reptiles,"  "amphibians,"  "fishes,"  etc.,  is  doomed 
to  failure  or  incompetence.  The  first  duty  of  the  thinker  is  to  learn  the  constitution 
of  the  one  type,  man.  His  second  duty  is  to  learn  each  individual's  variation  from 
this  common  humanity.  In  theory  it  means  that  man  is  mentally,  as  much  as 
physically,  one  species.  In  practice  it  means  that  each  individual  must  be  con- 
sidered by  himself.1 

This  statement  of  Thorndike,  the  psychologist,  so  accords  with 
"common  sense,"  that  we  almost  wonder  how  there  can  be  any 
question  about  the  fact  of  individual  differences  and  the  importance 
of  taking  them  into  account.  What  is  there  to  argue  about  anyway? 
The  problem  lies  in  the  antithesis  between  this  proposition  whose 
truth  seems  axiomatic  and  the  way  we  actually  deal  with  offenders. 
We  have  seen  already,  in  Chapter  I,  that  misdemeanants  are  usually 
handled  in  a  pretty  mechanical  fashion,  that  for  a  given  "crime"  a 
given  judge  will  mete  out  a  certain  relatively  fixed  penalty.  Why  is 
this  true?  One  answer  may  be  found  in  the  historical  development 
of  the  fixed  penalty  system. 

Historical  Background  of  the  Fixed  Penalty  System 

Tn  his  introduction  to  the  English  translation  of  Saleilles'  Indivi- 
dualization of  Punishment,  Roscoe  Pound  undertakes  to  account 
for  our  present  problem  in  historical  terms.  He  ascribes  the  system 
of  fixed  penalties,  first  of  all,  to  a  reaction  against  misuse  of  criminal 
law  by  agents  of  the  Crown  both  in  England  and  in  France;  American 
codes  having  their  roots  in  these  two  European  systems.2 

thorndike,  E.  L.:  "Individual  Differences."  Psychological  Bulletin  15:  148- 
159.     (May,  1918.) 

2  Saleilles,  Raymond:  "The  Individualization  of  Punishment."  Translated  by 
Rachel  Szold  Jastrow.     Boston.     1911.     pp.  xii-xv. 


104  THE  PASSING  OF  THE  COUNTY  JAIL 

Professor  Saleilles'  account  of  the  relation  of  the  classical  theory  to  French  penal 
legislation  should  be  of  especial  interest  in  America.  Substantially  all  that  he  says 
as  to  the  Penal  Codes  of  1791  and  1810  applies  equally  to  our  criminal  legislation. 
For  the  New  York  legislators  had  the  French  Code  of  1810  before  them.  Livingston's 
discussions,  based  on  French  sources,  were  before  them,  and  the  theories  on  which 
the  French  legislation  proceeded  were  familiar  and  congenial.  It  follows  that  the 
American  criminalist  has  little  to  add.  Perhaps  two  points  deserve  notice.  In  the 
first  place,  the  desire  to  preclude  arbitrary  judicial  action  was  especially  strong  in 
America,  because  in  the  hands  of  appointees  of  the  Crown  the  criminal  law  had  been 
found  an  efficient  engine  of  political  and  religious  persecution.  Unhappily,  our  law 
as  to  misdemeanors  had  developed  in  the  court  of  Star  Chamber,  and  the  contests 
between  the  common  law  courts  and  the  Crown  in  the  seventeenth  century  had 
convinced  the  next  age  that  there  was  no  safety  except  in  hard  and  fast  legal  formulas 
applied  mechanically.  .  .  .  But  in  France  also  the  classical  theory  was  a  reaction 
against  abuse  of  absolute  power.  In  consequence  the  American  reader  will  find  the 
author  in  sympathy  with  views  which  have  come  to  us  through  our  legal  history. 
For  our  experience  has  not  been  unique.  It  is  an  inherent  difficulty  in  the  adminis- 
tration of  punitive  justice  that  criminal  law  has  a  much  closer  connection  with 
politics  than  has  the  law  of  civil  relations.  There  is  no  great  danger  of  oppression 
through  civil  litigation.  There  is  constant  fear  of  oppression  through  the  criminal 
law.  Not  only  is  one  class  suspicious  of  attempts  by  another  to  force  its  ideas  upon 
the  community  under  penalty  of  prosecution,  but  the  power  of  the  majority  to  visit 
with  punishment  practices  which  a  strong  minority  consider  in  no  wise  objectionable 
is  liable  to  abuse,  and,  whether  rightly  or  wrongly  used,  puts  a  strain  upon  criminal 
law  and  administration.  All  criminalists  must  reckon  with  this  difficulty.  Perhaps 
American  lawyers  insist  upon  it  unduly,  to  the  exclusion  of  other  points  of  no  less 
importance.  But  revolutionary  France  had  the  same  ideas,  and  by  consequence 
the  author  canvasses  the  very  objections  and  discusses  the  very  requirements  of 
legal  policy  which  we  also  must  consider. 

Secondly,  Professor  Pound  points  out  the  influence  of  the  Puritans. 
They  felt  keenly  the  abuses  of  unrestricted  ecclesiastical  and  political 
authority.  But  they  substituted  for  the  absolute  bishop  and  king 
merely  another  absolute,  the  letter  of  the  law;  for  the  tyranny  of  the 
official,  the  tyranny  of  the  code.  The  influence  of  all  this  upon  penal 
codes  is  a  result  of  the  dominance  of  Puritan  ideas  during  the  forma- 
tive period  of  the  common  law. 

Secondly,  we  must  take  account  of  the  part  played  by  Puritanism  in  the  develop- 
ment of  Anglo-American  law.  The  relation  of  Puritanism  to  the  common  law  is 
quite  as  important  :i  pari  of  the  philosophical  history  of  our  legal  system  as  the 
relation  of  Stoic  philosophy  to  Roman  law  is  part  of  the  history  of  that  system.     In 

l  cast  we  have  to  do  with  tin-  dominant  Fashion  of  thinking  upon  fundamental 
questions  during  a  critical  period  of  growth.  The  two  growing  periods  of  our  legal 
system,  the  two  periods  in  which  the  rules  and  doctrines  tli.it  obtain  today  were 
formative,   were   the  classical  common   law   period,   the  end   of   the  sixteenth   and 


A  BASIS  FOR  INDIVID1    U.IZATION  105 

beginning  of  seventeenth  century,  and  tin-  America  common-law  period,  the  period 
of  legal  development  in  America  thai  i  omes  to  an  end  after  the  Civil  War.  But  the 
age  of  Coke  was  the  age  of  the  Puritan  in  England,  and  the  period  that  ends  v,ith 
our  Civil  War  was  the  age  of  the  Puritan  in  America.  Here  he  was  in  the  majority 
and  made  the  institutions  to  his  own  liking.  It  is  no  ac  cident,  therefore,  that  common- 
law  principles  have  often  attained  their  most  complete  logical  development  in  America. 
Hence  the  contribution  of  individualist  religious  dogma  to  the  criminal  law  was  much 
greater  in  America  than  in  France.  The  individualization  in  practice  which  was 
permitted  by  the  canon-law  conception  of  searching  and  disciplining  the  conscience 
was  wholly  alien  to  the  Puritan.  For  above  all  things  he  was  jealous  of  the  magis- 
trate. If  moral  questions  were  to  be  dealt  with  as  concrete  cases  to  be  individualized 
in  their  solution,  subordination  of  those  whose  cases  were  decided  to  those  who  had 
the  power  of  weighing  the  circumstances  of  the  concrete  case  and  individualizing 
the  principle  to  meet  that  case  might  result.  His  idea  of  "consociation  but  not 
subordination"  demanded  that  a  fixed,  absolute,  universal  rule,  which  the  individual 
had  contracted  to  abide,  be  resorted  to.  "Nowhere,"  says  Morley,  "has  Puritani-m 
done  us  more  harm  than  in  thus  leading  us  to  take  all  breadth  and  color  and  diversity 
and  fine  discrimination  out  of  our  judgments  of  men,  reducing  them  to  thin,  narrow 
and  superficial  pronouncements  upon  the  letter  of  their  morality  or  the  precise  con- 
formity of  their  opinions  to  accepted  standards  of  truth."  But  this  is  exactly  the 
method  of  the  classical  theory  in  criminal  law.  Indeed,  our  common-law  jurists 
have  taken  it  to  be  fundamental  in  legal  theory.  Thus  Amos  says:  "The  same  penalty 
for  a  broken  law  is  exacted  from  persons  of  an  indefinite  number  of  shades  of  moral 
guilt,  from  persons  of  high  education  and  culture,  well  acquainted  with  the  provisions 
of  the  law  they  despise,  and  from  the  humblest  and  most  illiterate  persons  in  the 
country."  And,  be  it  noted,  he  states  this  as  a  matter  of  course,  with  no  hint  that 
we  may  attain  anything  better.  Thus  political  events  and  the  Puritanism  of  nine- 
teenth-century America  tightened  the  hold  upon  us  of  a  theory  which  on  other  grounds 
for  a  time  was  accepted  everywhere.  For  to  find  a  proper  mean  between  a  system 
of  hard  and  fast  rules  and  one  of  completely  individualized  justice  is  one  of  the 
inherent  difficulties  of  all  administration  of  justice  according  to  law.  And  in  the 
movement  to  and  fro  from  the  over-arbitrary  to  the  over-mechanical,  the  eighteenth 
and  nineteenth  centuries  stood  for  the  latter.3 

This  statement  of  Pound's  may  be  supplemented  by  two  other 
ideas.  McLaughlin  points  out4  that  the  "social  compact"  was  a 
concept  much  used  in  our  constitution-making.  This  doctrine  is  one 
that  would  lend  itself  readily  to  the  idea  of  establishing  fixed  penalties 
for  breach  of  the  social  contract.  Locke  and  Rousseau  had  pro- 
pounded a  theory  which  was  popular  in  America  at  the  time  our  state 
and  national  governments  were  being  formed.  It  seems  reasonable  to 
suppose  that  it  influenced  the  penal  codes  as  well. 

*  Pound,     loc.  cit. 

4  McLaughlin,  A.  C:  "The  Courts,  The  Constitution  and  Parties."  See 
especially  Chapter  IV. 


106  THE  PASSING  OF  THE  COUNTY  JAIL 

The  general  suspicion  of  government,  whether  in  the  person  of 
executives  or  judges,  was  very  real  in  early  American  history.  The 
origin  of  this  attitude  has  already  been  suggested  by  Pound  and  is 
further  described  by  such  historians  as  Taswell-Langmead.5  This 
resulted  among  other  things  in  the  "due  process  of  law"  of  the  fifth 
amendment  to  the  Federal  Constitution  and  to  similar  clauses  in 
state  constitutions.  Taylor6  shows  how  the  reaction  against  Star 
Chamber  trials  and  similar  abuses  under  Charles  II  and  James  II 
were  influential  in  giving  prominence  in  American  law  to  the  two 
ideas  "due  process  of  law"  and  "equal  protection  of  the  law."  He 
also  makes  it  clear  that  these  concepts  had  something  to  do  with  the 
fixing  of  definite  penalties  in  criminal  law. 

Thus  the  historians  have  helped  us  to  account  for  the  fixed  penalty 
system  in  terms  of  (1)  the  reaction  against  arbitrary  and  oppressive 
judges,  (2)  the  Puritan  insistance  upon  fixed  rules  of  conduct  as  a 
means  of  escaping  from  episcopal  domination,  (3)  the  theory  of  a 
social  contract,  (4)  the  doctrines  "due  process  of  law"  and  "equal 
protection  of  the  laws."  This  seems  to  explain  pretty  well  the  origin 
of  a  penal  system  that  does  not  harmonize  with  the  "common  sense" 
observations  of  individual  differences.  It  has  restated  our  problem, 
but  has  not  given  us  any  hypothesis  for  its  solution.  But  here  we  have 
the  elements  of  our  problem:  on  the  one  hand,  fixed  penalties  for 
given  offenses;  on  the  other,  recognition  of  the  fact  of  individual 
differences. 

Practical  Difficulties  of  Individualization1 

The  evidence  presented  to  show  what  sort  of  people  misdemean- 
ants are  would  perhaps  be  for  many  an  adequate  basis  of  individuali- 
zation, especially  when  correlated  with  a  statement  like  Thorndike's. 
Thus,  we  found  misdemeanants,  we  well  as  felons,  of  both  sexes,  all 
ages,  both  native  and  foreign  born,  black  and  white,  married  and 

6  Taswell-Langmead,  Thos.  Pitt:  "English  Constitutional  History.  London. 
1896.     See  especially  pp.  464  ff. 

•  Taylor,  Hannis:  "Due  Process  of  Law  and  the  Equal  Protection  of  the  Laws." 
Chicago.     1917.     See  especially  pp.  55-6,  831-840. 

7  These  are  stated  in  some  detail  by  Parmelee  in  his  "Criminology"  (New  York. 
1918),  especially  on  page  394  and  following.  We  are  leaving  a  full  discussion  of 
these  and  an  answer  to  Parmelee's  "objections"  until  we  shall  have  outlined  our 
own  program  of  individualization.  Suffice  it  to  say  here  that  we  do  not  accept  the 
limitations  set  by  Parmelee. 


A  BASIS  FOR  INDIVIDUALIZATION  107 

single,  skilled  and  unskilled,  recidivists  and  first  offenders,  old  resi- 
dents and  transients,  sick  and  well,  f<  eble minded  and  normal,  illiter- 
ate and  college  graduates.  Moreover,  ad  thi  m  being  arrested 
for  a  wide  range  of  offenses  from  fishing  without  a  license  to  threaten- 
ing death,  from  indecent  exposure  to  i  mbezzlement,  from  riding  on 
the  sidewalk  to  habitual  drunkenness.  That  is,  it  seems  clear  that 
when  we  come  to  know  these  petty  offenders  with  even  an  approach  to 
intimacy  that  there  actually  are  so  many  different  kinds  of  them — so 
many  different  causal  factors,  and  so  many  different  combinations  of 
them — that  classification  is  well-nigh  impossible.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  practical  requirements  of  administration  compel  us  to  resort  to 
something  in  the  nature  of  classification.  From  the  financial  view- 
point alone  a  separate  scheme  of  treatment  for  each  offender  seems 
to  be  quite  impossible.  Methods  of  going  at  the  same  problem  in  the 
schools,  however,  suggest  that  individualization  need  not  mean  just 
this  But  more  as  to  that  anon.  Here  we  have  a  very  definite  problem 
of  financing  a  scheme  of  individualization. 

There  are  a  number  of  ways  in  which  the  financial  difficulty  may 
be  considerably  modified.  First  of  all,  there  is  the  possibility  of  unit- 
ing the  systems  of  handling  misdemeanants  and  felons,  utilizing 
existing  plants  so  far  as  possible,  and  turning  money  away  from  the 
up-keep  of  congregate  county  jails  into  the  maintenance  of  state 
institutions  established  for  the  care  of  special  groups  of  offenders. 
In  the  second  place,  we  may  count  upon  the  productive  employment 
of  a  large  number  of  prisoners  to  reduce  costs.  Such  experience  as 
that  of  the  Detroit  House  of  Correction  and  the  Kansas  City  Munici- 
pal Farm8  indicates  that  the  large  expense  of  maintaining  idle  men 
in  county  jails  is  unnecessary.  Third  there  is  the  probability  that 
indeterminate  sentences  will  reduce  the  amount  of  recidivism  and 
ultimately  reduce  the  number  of  arrests  and  trials  with  their  attend- 
ant costs,  thus  making  more  money  available  for  treatment.  Also 
when  recidivists  are  counted  only  once,  the  total  number  of  petty,  as 
well  as  serious,  offenders  will  be  found  much  smaller  than  now 
appears.  Fourth,  we  look  for  a  saving  to  society  by  lessing  the  losses 
due  to  theft,  habitual  idleness,  etc.,  and  also  by  immediate  produc- 
tivity while  undergoing  correctional  treatment,  as  well  as  by  rehabili- 

8  Detroit  House  of  Correction.     Annual  Reports.     1862 — . 
Kansas  City  Board  of  Public  Welfare.     Annual  Reports.     1910 — . 


108  THE  PASSING  OF  THE  COUNTY  JAIL 

tation  of  at  least  a  fraction  of  those  who  are  now  parasites.  We  may 
count  also  upon  other  factors  such  as  "prohibition,"  more  intelligent 
economic  legislation,  segregation  of  mental  defectives,  educated 
police,  simplification  of  criminal  procedure,  etc.,  to  reduce  the  number 
of  offenders  and  the  costs  of  caring  for  them. 

But  after  we  shall  have  made  all  these  changes  for  the  purpose  of 
economy  we  will  still  have  the  problem  of  individualization.  Clearly 
these  changes  alone  will  not  remove  our  difficulties.  Perhaps  the 
trouble  lies  in  us,  in  our  definition  of  the  individual.  So  far  we  have 
spoken  almost  as  though  he  were  a  distinct  entity.  We  have  empha- 
sized his  distinctive  characteristics,  but  we  have  rather  ignored  those 
respects  in  which  he  is  like  other  people.  We  have  emphasized  men's 
individual  differences,  but  we  have  neglected  their  common  humanity. 
This  suggests  that  a  restatement  of  our  problem  in  terms  of  social 
relations  will  bring  us  nearer  a  solution. 

The  Problem  in  Terms  of  Social  Relations 

Among  the  people  we  know  well  we  recognize  marked  personal 
distinctions.  We  have  no  difficulty  in  stating  their  individual  pecu- 
liarities. Our  relations  with  them  may  be  described  as  concrete. 
To  us  they  are  specific  people,  not  types.  Our  mental  imagery  of 
them  is  clear-cut  and  filled  out  in  practically  all  details.  We  know 
them  as  brothers  and  as  parents,  as  merchants  and  as  church-members 
as  members  of  lodges  and  clubs,  and  in  nearly  every  capacity  which 
they  may  fill.  We  have  in  consciousness  a  relatively  complete 
picture  of  every  member  of  our  primary  group.  Perhaps  this  sort  of 
relationship  is  most  clearly  seen  in  some  isolated  community  such  as 
may  be  found  among  the  Cumberland  Mountains  of  Kentucky.  In 
the  more  remote  mountain  valleys  there  are  practically  no  strangers, 
everybody  knows  everybody  else,  class  distinctions  do  not  exist, 
poverty  is  there  but  not  pauperism,  criminal  courts  have  very  few- 
cases.  There  is  a  delightful  intimacy,  a  charming  spirit  of  neighbor- 
liness  in  such  a  primary  group.  In  the  large  industrial  community  the 
situation  is  distinctly  different.  Yet  here  too  intimacy  is  possible. 
Only,  those  with  whom  we  are  intimate  may  not  have  anything  to  do 
with  each  other,  and  some  of  their  best  friends  may  be  strangers  to  us. 
Hut  for  each  of  us  there  is  a  primary  group  within  which  our  relations 
are  concrete.     Here  genuine  sympathy  may  grow  up,  because  we  are 


A  BASIS  FOR  INDIVIDUALIZATION  109 

able   to  put   ourselves  rather  completely  into  each   other's  places. 
Our  contacts  are  simple,  straightforward,  definite,  comprehensive. 

But  outside  this  inner  circle,  which  seems  to  exist  for  each  one  of 
us,  we  have  relations  of  a  different  sort.  There  are,  for  example,  the 
relations  of  salesman  and  customer,  lawyer  and  client,  physic  ian  and 
patient,  social  worker  and  "case."  It  is  possible  for  us  to  know  people 
merely  as  customers,  merely  as  clients,  merely  as  patients,  merely  as 
cases  applying  for  relief.  In  that  event,  our  relations  may  be  <!<  - 
cribed  as  abstract.  Such  abstract  relations  may  perhaps  be  best 
illustrated  by  our  ephemeral  contact  with  the  beggar,  or  by  the 
unyielding  attitudes  involved  in  race  prejudice.  Our  attitude  is 
formal.  We  are  considering  types  rather  than  specific  human  beings. 
The  imagery  is  more  hazy,  and  many,  if  not  most,  details  are  lacking. 
One  phase  of  human  life  has  been  abstracted  more  or  less  completely 
from  all  the  rest.  We  have  established  habits  of  acting  toward  each 
type,  which  make  it  possible  to  ignore  individual  differences.9 

Now  our  relations  with  delinquents  are  usually  of  the  latter  sort. 
For  the  most  part  they  do  not  belong  to  our  group  of  friends  and 
acquaintances.  Hence  our  attitudes  toward  them  are  pretty  formal 
and  conventional.  We  do  not  bother  about  seeing  them  as  complete 
human  beings.  There  is  no  conscious  adjustment  of  a  personal  sort 
between  them  and  us.  They  are  for  us  a  type — or  perhaps  several 
types.  We  ignore  their  individual  characteristics  and  consider  them 
abstractly  with  reference  to  a  single  aspect  of  their  lives.  Thus  we 
rarely  consider  the  possible  relations  of  offenders  as  husbands,  as 
fathers,  as  neighbors,  as  workmen,  as  voters.  They  are  to  us  simply 
"criminals."  We  have  fairly  definite  habits  of  acting  toward  them, 
which  relieve  us  of  the  necessity  for  exerting  ourselves  as  we  do  in 
social  intercourse  with  those  of  our  own  group.10  These  established 
habits  and  conventional  attitudes  correspond  to  the  fixed  penalties 
of  the  law. 

9  Perhaps  it  would  be  more  accurate  throughout  this  discussion  to  say  that  we 
know  a  man's  activity  rather  than  his  personality.  That  would  mean  that  in  these 
abstract  relations  we  respond  to  only  one  set  of  actions  in  the  other  person.  We 
respond  merely  to  the  purchasing,  the  requesting  of  legal  advice,  the  seeking  of 
medical  assistance,  the  appealing  for  financial  aid.  Rut  if  our  relations  were  con- 
crete, we  would  respond  to  every  sort  of  activity  in  the  persons  with  whom  we  deal. 

10  Parsons,  Elsie  Clews:    "Fear  and  Conventionality."     New  York.     1914. 


110  THE  PASSING  OF  THE  COUNTY  JAIL 

One  aspect  of  our  problem,  then,  may  be  put  thus:  Offenders  are 
neither  members  of  the  larger  social  organization,  nor  are  they  com- 
pletely outside  of  it.  We  are  not  willing  to  thrust  them  out  entirely, 
but  we  have  no  suitable  technique  for  taking  them  in.  Perhaps  our 
unsuccessful  dealings  with  them  are  due  to  this  anomalous  situation. 
Can  we  extend  our  truly  concrete  relations  so  as  to  include  delin- 
quents? Is  it  physically  possible  for  us  to  know  intimately  an  indefi- 
nite number  of  people?  Are  there  not  more  or  less  definite  limitations 
upon  primary  groups?  It  seems  that  for  those  beyond  the  range  of 
personal  acquaintance  we  must  fall  back  upon  abstract  relations. 
But  what  sort  of  abstractions  will  enable  us  to  sovle  this  problem? 
Are  they  to  be  the  abstractions  of  social  caste,  religion,  race,  or 
something  of  that  sort?  or  can  we  acquire  attitudes  which  will  make 
all  men  potential  members  of  our  primary  group?  Specifically,  with 
reference  to  offenders,  what  technique  will  make  it  possible  to  develop 
concrete  relations  between  a  delinquent  and  one  who  has  never  broken 
a  law?11  This  does  not  imply  any  expectation  that  everyone  shall 
become  intimate  with  everyone  else.  But  it  does  anticipate  a  situa- 
tion in  which  there  is  as  much  possibility  of  a  "criminal"  and  a 
"lawT-abiding  citizen"  "getting  together,"  as  there  is  of  two  "hoboes" 
sharing  their  coffee,  or  of  two  business  men  joining  the  same  club. 

Another  phase  of  our  attitude  toward  delinquents  is  important 
in  this  connection.  They  are,  to  all  intents  and  purposes,  enemies. 
We  make  allowances  for  our  friends,  but  not  for  our  enemies.  We 
"understand"  our  friends.  We  balance  one  trait,  or  one  activity, 
against  another.  Because  we  know  their  lives  in  the  large,  we  are  not 
unduly  impressed  by  single  acts  or  single  habits.  Thus,  if  a  man 
belongs  to  our  political  party,  we  excuse  him  for  stuffing  the  ballot- 
box;  we  see  no  harm  in  his  frequenting  houses  of  ill-fame;  we  pass 
lightly  over  his  bribery  of  a  city  council  on  the  ground  that  he  is  a 

11  This  is  not  an  attempt  to  blink  the  fact  that  the  relations  between  prison 
officials,  for  example,  and  prisoners  are  necessarily  somewhat  abstract  and  formal. 
It  is  an  attempt  to  state  the  sort  of  thing  that  must  happen  if  the  offender  is  to  be 
delivered  from  the  attitude  of  an  outcast  and  enemy  of  the  social  order.  Perhaps 
the  prison  officials,  perhaps  even  the  parole  officer  will  never  be  really  intimate  with 
the  delinquent.  But  somehow,  it  seems,  there  should  be  a  way  for  the  erring  one 
to  come  into  close  personal  relations  with  the  "ninety  and  nine."  At  least,  we  may 
fairly  raise  the  question:  Is  it  possible  to  develop  concrete  relations  between  a  delin- 
quent and  a  law-abiding  citizen?     And  if  so,  how  can  it  be  done? 


A  BASIS  FOR  INDIVIDUALIZATION  1  1  1 

good  father;  we  pardon  his  occasional  drunken  sprees  because  lie  is  a 
good  fellow.  But  woe  (o  him,  if  he  be  of  the  opposition.  In  our 
political  enemies,  ballot-box  graft  is  an  unpardonable  crime  sexual 
vice  is  an  unforgiveable  offense,  bribery  is  a  felony,  drunk<  nness  is  a 
sign  of  degeneracy.  Observation  of  any  such  trait  in  an  enemy  spurs 
us  (o  violent  denunciation.  Of  course,  this  is  most  obviously  true  in 
the  case  of  national  enemies.  We  boil  with  righteous  indignation  at 
the  harsh  deeds  of  the  foe,  and  condone  the  same  acts  on  the  part  of 
our  compatriots.  Pillaging  and  ravaging  Northern  France  was  a 
horrible  crime  against  humanity  on  the  part  of  the  Germans,  but  the 
rape  and  destruction  in  Posen  was  a  necessary  incident  of  the  war  as 
carried  on  by  the  Russians. 

This  does  not  mean  that  the  excusing  of  crimes  and  the  coddling 
of  criminals  is  desirable.  It  is  simply  emphasizing  a  difference  that 
really  exists  between  our  attitude  toward  comrades  and  our  attitude 
toward  enemies.  There  is,  of  course,  still  another  situation  in  which 
we  do  not  expel  or  destroy  the  offender,  but  neither  do  we  condone 
his  action.  We  want  to  retain  him  as  a  member  of  the  group;  we 
recognize  that  he  can  render  valuable  services.  But  we  find  it  neces- 
sary to  prevent  certain  actions  on  his  part  and  to  make  him  conform 
more  completely  to  the  customs  of  the  group. 

To  state  it  in  another  way — if  we  object  to  some  trait  or  action  of 
a  member  of  our  own  group,  we  do  not  forthwith  break  loose  in 
unchecked  fury.  On  the  contrary,  we  are  restrained  by  other  con- 
siderations which  bind  him  to  us.  The  real  conflict  is  not  between 
him  and  us;  it  is  between  opposing  impulses  within  us.  The  same 
thing  seems  to  be  true  with  reference  to  rivalry  and  competition 
within  the  group.  It  may  take  place  so  long  as  it  is  of  possible  value 
to  the  group,  but  it  must  not  be  permitted  to  injure  the  group  in  its 
competition  or  conflicts  with  outsiders.  Thus,  members  of  a  political 
party  or  church  may  debate  among  themselves,  but  they  must  present 
a  united  front  to  opposing  parties  or  rival  churches.  Meat  packers 
may  compete  with  each  other  so  long  as  their  position  against  the 
government  is  not  weakened.  Here  again  there  is  an  inner  conflict. 
Each  debater  or  competitor  is  checked  and  restrained  in  his  opposi- 
tion by  considerations  of  group  welfare.  All  the  impulses,  including 
those  of  hostility,  are  organized,  because  of  our  intimate  relations  and 
our  comprehensive  knowledge  of  our  fellows.  This  may  be  described 
in  one  aspect  as  social  control,  in  another  as  self  control. 


112  THE  PASSING  OF  THE  COUNTY  JAIL 

But  when  it  is  the  outsider  or  enemy  who  meets  our  disapproval, 
the  disapproval  has  full  sway.  The  impulse  to  condemn  is  not 
inhibited  by  other  impulses,  such  as  might  be  involved  in  considera- 
tion for  his  family,  his  business,  his  political  party,  his  church,  etc. 
There  is  nothing  to  which  we  have  a  common  loyalty.  We  do  not 
feel  the  need  of  settling  our  differences  in  such  manner  that  we  can 
work  together  against  another  and  common  foe.  Consequently 
we  "let  ourselves  go."  We  are  exhilarated  in  the  feeling  of  unre- 
stricted activity.  There  is  nothing  we  may  not  do  to  the  enemy. 
Moreover,  this  intense  excitement  of  turning  our  energy  loose  is 
enormously  heightened  when  we  find  the  other  members  of  our  group 
doing  the  same  thing.  We  attain  an  enlarged  self-feeling  and  enthu- 
siasm in  this  identification  of  ourselves  with  the  group.  The  lid  is 
off!  self  control  and  social  control  are  removed.  We  have  here  all  the 
typical  phenomena  of  the  crowd  or  mob.12  All  this  may  be  said  to 
grow  out  of  the  fact  that  the  object  of  our  fury  is  hardly  a  person,  but 
a  type;  scarcely  a  real  human  being,  but  almost  an  impersonal  danger. 
Lynch  law  is  the  best  example  of  unhampered  reaction  against  those 
who  do  not  "belong." 

Now  this  is  very  much  like  our  attitude  toward  offenders.  We 
treat  them  as  the  enemies  of  conventional  and  respectable  society. 
If  there  is  a  quarrel  between  a  rancher  and  his  "hands,"  and  if  some- 
body is  hurt  or  killed,  we  round  up  every  "blanket  stiff"  in  the 
county  and  either  lock  him  in  jail  or  run  him  down  the  road.  We  are 
not  concerned  with  underlying  causes  of  the  disturbance.  We  simply 
let  ourselves  go.  The  worst  that  we  can  do  to  those  beyond  the  pale 
of  "good  society"  is  regarded  as  less  than  they  deserve. 

On  the  other  hand,  our  treatment  of  delinquents  seems  well  calcu- 
lated to  make  them  feel  themselves  the  enemies  of  "organized  socie- 
ty." They  feel  every  man's  hand  against  them.  The  idleness  of  a 
congregate  county  jail  affords  an  excellenl  opportunity  for  a  group 
spirit  to  develop  among  the  prisoners,  and  this  group  spirit  is  pretty 
sure  to  define  itself  in  opposition  to  the  group  life  represented  by  the 
sheriff,  the  rancher,  the  hanker,  the  whole  list  of  those  who  "belong." 
Then,  of  course,  the  organization  of  the  criminal  group  excites  still 
more  their  enemies,  and  so  the  thing  grows. 

12  Mc.id,  (Wnrw  II.:  "The  Psychology  of  Punitive-  Justice."  American  Journal 
of  Sociology,  23:  577-602.    (March,  1«>1  X-  > 

Ross,  E.  A.:   "Social  Psychology."    New  York.     1908. 

Davenport,  F.M.:  "Primitive  Traits  in  Religious  Revivals."     New  York.     1°06. 


A  BASIS  FOR  INDIVIDUALIZATION  113 

Our  problem  of  individualization  the  discrepancy  between  "<om- 
mon  sense"  interpretation  of  individual  differences  and  actual  penal 
practise — grows  out  of  the  necessary  limitations  upon  really  intimate, 
concrete  relations,  and  the  necessity  of  finding  a  technique  for  dealing 
with  people  who  are  outside  of  our  " primary"  group.  It  is,  of  course, 
physically  impossible  for  us  to  be  intimate  with  everybody.  But  that 
need  not  force  us  to  the  opposite  extreme  of  hostility  toward  all  who 
do  not  belong  to  our  circle.  Abstract  relations  are  to  concrete  rela- 
tions as  habits  are  to  problem-solving  activities.  Both  are  essential 
to  life.  The  problem  is,  then,  one  of  establishing  a  good  working 
balance  between  the  two. 

The  solution  which  this  statement  suggests  is  this.  If  we  cannot 
have  concrete  relations  with  everybody,  we  can  at  least  stand  in  such 
relationship  with  someone  else  who  in  turn  is  also  intimate  with  the 
one  farther  removed  from  our  immediate  circle.  It  means  that  we 
need  to  recognize  in  every  person  the  facts  of  individuality  and  of 
common  humanity.  It  compels  us  to  find  some  correctional  system 
which  will  put  every  offender  in  a  group  which  includes  non-offending 
as  well  as  offending  persons  (if  not  within  prison  walls,  at  least  on 
parole).  It  stimulates  us  to  prevent  the  formation  of  a  criminal 
group,  and  at  the  same  time  indirectly  breaks  up  the  group  which  is 
formed  over  against  the  delinquents. 

Perhaps  the  question  has  arisen:  Why  attempt  to  take  the  offen- 
der back  into  our  civic  order  at  all?  Why  not  simply  let  him  go? 
Or,  perhaps,  reestablish  the  old  custom  of  banishment.  Would  it  not 
be  simpler  to  send  all  criminals  away  or  to  kill  them  than  to  undertake 
the  task  of  making  good  citizens  out  of  them?  What  are  they  to  us 
anwyay? 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  problem  of  rehabilitation  arises  only  when 
the  delinquent  is  one  of  us;  when  he  is  not  an  enemy  from  without,  but 
a  rebel  from  within.  Then  to  eliminate  him  by  banishment  or  death 
is  to  weaken  the  group,  perhaps  to  adopt  a  policy  of  social  suicide. 
Abandonment  of  correctional  efforts  would  mean  destruction  of  social 
control  and  annihilation  of  the  group.  If  group  life  is  to  continue  at 
all,  it  must  be  by  adjustments  between  members,  not  by  the  ejection 
of  those  who  deviate  from  the  ways  of  the  majority  or  the  powerful. 
This  is  why  our  problem  is  fundamentally  one  of  finding  a  technique 
for  bringing  offenders  to  full  participation  in  our  common  life. 


114  THE  PASSING  OF  THE  COUNTY  JAIL 

The  Problem  in  Terms  of  Activity 

Our  original  statement  of  distinctive  characteristics  as  a  basis  for 
individualization  we  found  to  be  inadequate,  because  it  failed  to  take 
account  of  the  collective  aspect  of  life.  In  still  another  way  it  was 
one-sided.  It  emphasized  influences  which  contribute  to  delinquency, 
but  ignored  the  activity  of  the  offender  himself. 

Suppose,  however,  we  regard  that  statement  as  representing  only 
one  aspect  of  the  offender.  Let  us  not  consider  him  as  a  puppet 
played  upon  by  external  powers,  a  human  machine  operated  by 
"social  forces."  But  neither  let  us  jump  to  the  opposite  extreme  and 
look  upon  the  transgressor  as  one  who,  standing  at  the  parting  of 
the  ways,  deliberately  and  with  perfect  freedom  of  choice,  elected  to 
do  the  forbidden  deed.  Rather  let  us  behold  him  as  an  active  agent 
responding  to  stimuli  in  a  situation  which  in  one  sense  makes  him 
and  which  in  an  equally  valid  sense  is  made  by  him. 

Our  earlier  statement  emphasized  predisposition  and  stimulus — 
to  use  terms  of  the  psychologist — but  it  neglected  response.  The 
criminal  act,  just  as  any  other  act,  involves  all  these.  They  may  be 
regarded  as  aspects  of  the  act,  which  cannot  really  be  taken  apart 
into  separate  elements.  Neither  offense  nor  offender  can  be  under- 
stood adequately — adequately,  i.e.,  for  successful  correctional  treat- 
ment or  social  protection — unless  account  be  taken  of  (1)  predisposi- 
tion, by  which  we  mean  instinct  and  habit  as  well  as  general  bodily 
conditions,  such  as  fatigue,  hunger,  etc.,  (2)  stimulus,  which  may  be 
the  smell  of  whiskey,  a  threatened  blow  or  the  sight  of  a  passing 
freight  train,  (3)  response,  which  includes  not  only  the  overt  act 
described  and  forbidden  in  the  penal  code,  but  also  repressed  impulses 
and  unsuccessful  efforts. 

Take  for  example,  the  case  of  a  vagrant  who  is  a  habitual  wan- 
derer. He  is  arrested,  let  us  say,  for  stealing  a  ride  on  a  freight  t  rain  . 
We  might  say  that  the  man  had  deliberately — with  full  knowledge 
of  the  fact  that  he  was  violating  the  law,  and  with  equal  possibility 
of  deciding  not  to  be  a  social  parasite— decided  to  "hop"  the  freight. 
We  might,  on  the  contrary,  seek  to  find  out  the  causes  for  his  stealing 
the  ride,  the  origin  of  liis  wandering  habits.  We  might  say  that ,  given 
a  certain  congenital  equipment,  a  certain  set  of  surroundings  and 
consequently  established  habits,  there  was  no  possibility  of  the  man's 
behaving  otherwise  than  he  did.  The  latter  position  is  apt  to  be  more 
carefullv  stated  than  the  former  and  more  helpful  in  dealing  with  the 


A  BASIS  FOR  INDIVIDUALIZATION  115 

offender.  Yet  it,  too,  is  inadequate.  There  is  a  measure  of  truth  in 
each  view.  We  are  properly  very  much  interested  in  learning  what 
sort  of  an  organism  came  into  the  world  when  the  man  was  born  and 
what  has  happened  to  it  since  that  time.  We  are  properly  concerned 
in  possible  feeblemindedness,  epilepsy,  dementia  praecox,  parental 
neglect,  playmates'  ridicule,  "Wild  West  movies,"  associates  urging 
to  drink,  necessity  of  travelling  in  search  of  work,  habits  of  inter- 
mittent labor,  ease  of  securing  food  by  begging.  But  more  than  that, 
we  find  it  important  to  emphasize  the  fact  that  he  has  done  some- 
thing. He  was  not  passively  played  upon  by  external  causes.  He 
acted;  he  responded  to  stimuli.  That  his  action  may  have  been 
unreflective  is  in  no  way  inconsistent  with  this  view. 

If  this  habitual  wanderer  is  to  be  changed  into  a  steady  workman 
or  a  contented  inmate  of  a  custodial  institution,  several  things  must 
happen.  For  one,  the  habit  of  securing  his  meals  by  back-door 
begging  must  be  displaced  by  the  habit  of  earning  money  and  paying 
for  them.  Or,  if  that  be  impossible,  the  habits  involved  in  institu- 
tional life  must  be  acquired.  Neither  change  is  likely  to  occur  as  the 
result  of  mere  repression.  Assume,  in  order  to  simplify  the  problem, 
that  the  man  has  an  intelligence  and  a  physique  not  far  from  what  we 
regard  as  normal.  It  may  be  that  confinement  in  a  county  jail  for 
six  months  will  produce  such  a  change  that  the  present  vagrant  will 
henceforth  be  a  reliable  laborer.  But  the  statistics  of  recidivism 
indicate  that  this  is  very  unlikely.  Will  the  chances  of  rehabilitation 
or  "habilitation"  be  greater  if,  instead  of  idling  in  jail,  he  is  required 
to  work  on  a  public  road?  Probably  so.  But  this  alone  is  no  guaran- 
tee of  the  desired  result.  Our  observation  is  that  road  gangs  are  more 
useful  for  diverting  vagrants  than  for  curing  them. 

Suppose,  instead  of  either  of  these,  the  man  were  placed  in  a 
group  where,  under  definite  limitations  controlled  by  state  officers,  he 
would  have  the  opportunity  and  the  incentive  to  develop  working 
relations  with  his  associates  and  his  physical  environment.  Here 
would  be  recognition  of  the  man  as  an  active  agent,  choosing,  decid- 
ing, adjusting.  But  here  would  be  also  a  recognition  of  the  man's 
hereditary  equipment,  his  habits  and  the  sort  of  stimuli  to  which  he 
responds.  The  factors  which  had  a  part  in  his  becoming  a  habitual 
wanderer  and  in  the  particular  offense  of  stealing  a  ride  would  be 
partially  eliminated.  New  influences  would  be  substituted.  But  in 
the  midst  of  these  changes  the  man  himself  would  be  acting,  adapting 


116  THE  PASSING  OF  THE  COUNTY  JAIL 

himself  to  his  new  surroundings  and  associates.  If  he  were  successful 
in  solving  the  problems  which  this  involved,  he  might  go  on  to  the 
solution  of  more  difficult  problems,  adapting  himself  to  more  complex 
situations,  learning  to  get  along  with  more  and  different  sorts  of 
people.  At  the  beginning  there  would  be  a  high  degree  of  direct 
control  by  the  state  officers.  This  would  be  relinquished  in  propor- 
tion as  there  was  developed  that  which  is  in  one  aspect  self  control 
and  in  another  aspect  social  control. 

Individualization  means  for  us,  then,  something  like  this:  the 
assignment  of  a  delinquent  to  the  group  and  to  the  set  of  living  conditions 
in  the  midst  of  which  he  is  most  apt  to  succeed  in  "finding  himself." 
So  far  as  the  management  is  concerned,  this  particular  group  may  be 
subjected  to  a  common  set  of  living  conditions.  But  it  will  not  be  on 
the  assumption  that  all  members  of  the  group  are  alike.  The  fact 
of  individual  differences  will  be  accepted  and  recognized.  These 
very  differences  will  be  the  basis  for  development  of  the  group  as  a 
whole  and  of  the  separate  members.  The  purpose  of  the  grouping 
will  be  partly  to  limit  the  numbers,  thus  producing  an  artificially 
small  society;  and  partly  to  limit  the  degrees  of  difference,  e.g., 
between  the  feebleminded  and  the  mentally  normal,  the  physically 
sound  and  those  suffering  from  infectious  diseases.  But  within  the 
limited  group  and  under  the  more  or  less  controlled  conditions  of  liv- 
ing and  working  the  offender  will  have  the  privilege  of  "working  out 
his  own  salvation." 

The  first  task  of  individualization  is,  then,  to  study  each  offender 
so  as  to  learn,  so  far  as  possible,  in  what  sort  of  a  group  and  under 
what  other  circumstances  he  is  likely  to  make  successful  adjust- 
ments. The  second  task  is  to  form  groups  of  prisoners  likely  to  devel- 
op together,  and  to  establish  progressive  conditions  under  which 
their  development  is  likely  to  take  place. 

Perhaps  it  will  be  helpful  to  restate  this  in  terms  of  choice.  This 
is  not  to  reopen  the  obsolete  question  of  free-will  versus  determinism.1,1 

u  We  wish  to  guard  against  entering  into  the  old  controversy  of  freewill  versus 
determinism.  Wc  regard  each  position  simply  as  a  different  aspect  of  the  same 
problem;  each  position  supplementing  the  other;  each  inadequate  and  misleading 
without  the  other.  It  is  hard  to  see  how  a  genuinely  tree  will  could  he  moulded  by 
any  corra  tional  system.     It  is  equally  bard  to  believe  that  an  offender  can  be  made 

.1  good  I  ili/.cn  through  a  sort  of  moral  osteopathy,  to  which  he  may  passively  submit. 
For  a  more  complete  statement  sic:  ( 'ooley,  Chas.  II.-  "Human  Nature  and  the 
Sodal  Order."     New  York.     1910.     "Social  Process."     New  York.     1918. 


A  BASIS  FOR   IMU\  ID!   ALIZATION  117 

It  is  simply  to  study  our  problem  from  another  angle.  Choice  is 
determined  by  a  multitude  of  influences — hereditary,  developmental, 
mcterological,  economic,  social — hut  still  there  is  choice,  unless  the 
act  performed  is  instinctive  or  reflex.  Even  if  the  act  be  a  habitual 
response  to  familiar  stimuli,  there  must  have  been  a  time  when  a 
judgment  of  some  sort  was  made. 

In  practically  dealing  with  offenders,  some  officials  have  learned 
empirically  the  necessity  of  giving  the  prisoner  opportunities  for 
making  decisions.  At  first  in  a  very  limited  way,  with  the  conditions 
carefully  controlled,  and  then  in  larger  and  larger  measure,  decisions 
may  be  made  which  affect  the  prisoner's  personal  comfort  and  rela- 
tions to  other  people.  Admittedly  he  is  not  exercising  a  "free  will," 
but  neither  are  his  decisions  made  for  him.  He  must  and  does  choose 
between  alternative  courses  of  conduct.  He  is  influenced  by  privileges 
which  may  be  granted  or  withheld,  prospects  of  release,  the  opinion 
of  fellow  prisoners,  objective  processes  such  as  stock-raising  and 
furniture-making,  desire  to  serve  his  family,  etc.  But  the  important 
thing  is  that  he  does  choose  and  that  the  practise  in  making  choices 
is  the  process  through  which  he  becomes  a  good  citizen  or  a  confirmed 
criminal. 

Various  aspects  of  the  "honor  system"  present  situations  in  which 
prisoners  must  make  choices  for  themselves.  Thus  we  have  seen 
men  working  on  the  streets  and  highways  of  California  without  any 
guards.  Convicts  in  many  prisons  may  earn  the  privilege  of  writing 
letters,  seeing  visitors,  attending  "movies"  or  ball  games,  or  enroll- 
ing in  prison  schools.  This  principle  of  choice  under  controlled 
conditions  has  been  variously  expressed  by  prison  officials.  Warden 
A.  J.  G.  Wells  of  the  Kentucky  State  Prison  put  it  thus:14 

Good  prison  discipline  is  such  wise  and  orderly  daily  procedure  as  is  reasonably 
calculated  to  lead  each  individual  prisoner  to  think  the  best,  to  aim  the  best  and  act 
the  best,  during  the  period  of  his  confinement  and  after  his  release. 

Chaplain  Orville  L.  Kiplinger  of  the  Indiana  State  Prison  has  a 
clearer  statement.15 

Why  are  men  in  prison?  Because  they  lacked  self-control.  There  is  yet  in 
most  prisons  entirely  too  much  of  the  "thou  shalt  not"  to  bring  men  to  self-control. 
In  the  training  of  a  child  it  is  not  enough  to  make  him  do  certain  things  that  are 


M  American  Prison  Association.      191  I.  67. 
"Ibid.     pp.  246-249. 


118  THE  PASSING  OF  THE  COUNTY  JAIL 

right.  Successful  training  makes  him  want  to  do  the  things  which  are  right.  Under 
the  heavy  and  inflexible  force  of  prison  discipline  whose  central  tenet  is  "thou  shalt 
not,"  if  a  man  becomes  a  good  prisoner  it  is  too  often  the  result  of  fear.  .  .  .  Unless 
he  is  taught  to  see  the  advantages  of  right  living  as  its  own  reward  the  so-called 
"discipline"  is  a  total  failure.     .     .     . 

Perhaps  the  deepest  longing  of  the  prisoner  is  for  the  right  of  self-expression. 
Little  opportunity  for  self-expression  is  given  in  most  of  our  prisons.  In  the  average 
prison  no  prisoner  would  dare  express  his  real  feelings  toward  certain  of  the  prison 
rules.  And  the  objection  which  most  prisoners  would  voice  toward  most  of  the 
prison  rules  is  that  they  had  no  part  in  making  them.  Men  will  submit  to  almost 
any  set  of  rules  if  they  have  a  part  in  making  them. 

Perhaps  still  more  to  the  point  are  the  words  of  Dr.  Kenosha  Ses- 
sions, Superintendent  of  the  Indiana  Industrial  School.16 

From  the  hour  a  girl  arrives  in  our  institution,  she  is  given  to  understand  that 
while  we  will  do  all  we  can  to  help  her,  after  all  she  is  the  one  who  must  direct  her 
motives  from  the  inside  and  find  her  way  out  of  the  institution  through  her  own 
efforts.  We  give  the  girl  a  task  to  do  the  hour  she  enters,  and  she  is  held  steadily 
to  that  task.  No  girl  comes  out  of  our  institution  until  she  has  finished  a  definite 
course  of  training  in  all  sorts  of  domestic  work,  and  has  continued  in  this  course 
because  of  good  conduct. 

Not  only  is  the  principle  of  stimulating  interest,  giving  oppor- 
tunity for  making  choices,  and  eliciting  the  co-operation  of  the 
prisoner,  utilized  more  and  more  in  dealing  with  normal  offenders; 
it  is  also  acquiring  widely  recognized  validity  for  the  treatment  of 
the  insane.  From  diagnosis  to  discharge  the  modern  hospital  staff 
deals  with  an  insane  person  not  as  an  object  to  be  moulded  by  his 
surroundings  and  attendants,  by  medicine  and  restraint,  but  as  a 
human  being  with  an  active  will,  capable  at  least  in  a  few  elementary 
matters  of  making  choices.17 

This  begins  with  the  first  conference  of  physicians  for  the  purpose 
of  diagnosis  and  is  carried  clear  through  to  the  final  conference  to 
consider  the  question  of  discharge.  In  those  institutions  which  we 
have  visited  we  have  found  the  patient  appealed  to.  He  told  his 
own  story  without  interference,  no  matter  how  confused  it  might  be. 
If  his  ideas  were  obviously  distorted,  he  was  then  helped  to  clear 
them  up,  to  see  things  in  the  relations  recognized  by  "normal"  per- 
sons.    If  he  was  "violent,"  mechanical  restraint  was  used  only  as  a 

16  American  Prison  Association.     1916:  72-73. 

17  Hunl  ft  ;il  :  "The  Institutional  Care  of  the  Insane  in  the  United  States  and 
Canada."     Baltimore.     1:  217-257. 

Beers,  C.  \Y.:    "A  Mind  that  Found  [tself."     New  York.     1913. 


A  BASIS  FOR  INDIVIDUALIZATION  119 

last  resort.  Even  sedative  drugs  were  rarely  employed.  At  first 
baths  and  massages  were  applied,  but  as  soon  as  possible  the  patinet 
was  interested  in  something  outside  himself.  In  gardening  and 
basketry,  in  games  and  dances,  he  was  put  in  positions  where  he  must 
make  choices.  He  could  not  simply  drift,  passively  receiving  thera- 
peutic treatment.  Finally,  in  the  "curable"  cases  there  was  often  a 
trial  absence  from  the  hospital.  In  other  words,  there  was  deliberate- 
ly employed  as  a  policy,  stimulation  of  the  patient  so  that,  beginning 
perhaps  with  adjustments  to  physical  objects,  and  leading  up  to 
more  or  less  complex  social  situations,  the  patient  had  to  exercise 
his  power  of  judgment.  The  conditions  under  which  judgments 
might  be  made  were  definitely  limited  by  the  physicians  and  attend- 
ants— limited  in  accordance  with  the  capacity  of  the  patient  for 
making  judgments — but  the  making  of  judgments  was  expected, 
encouraged  and  regarded  as  an  essential  aspect  of  the  treatment. 

Attempted  Solution  in  Terms  of  Group  Life 

To  summarize — we  have  established  pretty  definitely  the  fact  of 
individual  differences.  We  have  seen  why  the  present  penal  systems 
do  not  harmonize  with  this  fact.  We  have  found  some  practical 
difficulties  in  the  way  of  recognizing  individual  differences  in  a 
correctional  system.  But  we  have  restated  our  problem  in  such 
manner  that  we  have  a  notion  as  to  where  the  solution  is  to  be  found. 
We  have  come  to  look  upon  our  task  as  that  of  finding  a  technique 
for  bringing  offenders  to  full  participation  in  our  common  life — not 
through  treatment  to  which  they  shall  passively  submit,  but — 
through  their  active  participation  in  a  restricted  social  organization. 
We  have  found  evidence  that  prison  and  reformatory  officials  are 
working  their  way  empirically  toward  this  very  idea.  The  limited 
extent  of  their  accomplishment,  however,  has  been  pointed  out  by 
Warden  Osborne.18 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  even  at  the  best  there  is  nothing  fundamentally  new  about 
the  Honor  system;  the  differences  between  it  and  the  old  Auburn  system  are  purely 
superficial.  One  threatens  punishment;  the  other  offers  reward;  but  so  far  as  the 
ultimate  success  of  the  prisoner  is  concerned,  there  is  not  much  to  choose.  Both 
systems  leave  altogether  out  of  sight  the  fact  that  when  the  man  leaves  the  shelter 
of  the  prison  walls  there  will  be  no  one  either  to  punish  or  reward.  Unless  he  has 
learned  to  do  right  on  his  own  initiative,  there  is  no  security  against  his  return  to 
prison. 


18  Osborne,  Thos.  M.:    "Society  and  Prisons."     New  Haven.     1916.     p.  216. 


120  THE  PASSING  OF  THE  COUNTY  JAIL 

The  Mutual  Welfare  League,  which  Osborne  organized,  is  rich 
in  suggestions.  But  there  is  another  experiment,  less  well  known 
perhaps,  which  has  had  a  much  greater  measure  of  success.  In  re- 
organizing the  Preston  School  of  Industry  at  lone,  California,  Calvin 
Derrick  has  probably  gone  farther  than  anyone  else  in  consciously 
developing  a  system  of  socialized  individualization  of  offenders. 
For  a  description  of  this  effort  and  accomplishment  we  shall  use  an 
abbreviated  statement  of  Derrick's  own  account.19 

.  .  .  Through  the  study  of  the  Binet  work  and  through  other  sources  of 
information,  we  sift  out  those  who  can  not,  or  should  not,  be  permitted  in  a  self- 
governing  community.  As,  for  instance,  the  moral  perverts  and  those  afflicted  with 
venereal  diseases  which  are  in  a  dangerous  stage,  or  those  having  records  as  sodomists 
and  who  are  not  known  to  us  to  have  overcome  the  disease.  These  are  under  the 
study  and  control  of  adults.  Finally,  we  have  a  small  number  of  unbalanced,  defiant 
boys  who  by  reason  of  their  disposition  cannot  live  peaceably  or  efficiently  except 
under  rigid  control  and  restraint.  These,  too,  are  excluded  from  the  self-government 
company.     All  of  these  exclusions  represent  about  ten  per  cent  of  our  population. 

Fully  realizing  that  one  of  the  most  important,  and  indeed  scientific,  sides  of 
the  work  is  that  of  discipline  or  the  proper  methods  of  correction,  we  have  placed 
the  following  safeguards  about  the  question:  Every  complaint  against  any  boy  for 
anything  trivial  or  serious  by  either  cadets  or  state  officers,  passes  through  the  hands 
of  a  state  officer,  my  second  assistant,  a  university  bred  man,  who  has  made  a  special 
study  of  discipline  and  is  fairly  well  grounded  in  applied  psychology.  Complaints 
dealing  with  immorality  between  the  boys,  or  those  requiring  a  pathological  study, 
also  those  peculiar  deviations  which  could  not,  or  in  justice  to  the  boy,  should  not, 
be  handled  by  the  cadet  courts,  are  put  aside  for  special  care  and  disposal  by  the 
state.  All  complaints  against  those  who  are  excluded  from  self-government,  as 
referred  to  a  moment  since,  are  similarly  treated.  The  others  all  go  to  the  clerk  of 
the  court  and  are  disposed  of  by  the  cadets  themselves.  As  a  further  safeguard  to 
the  cadets,  it  is  granted  that  any  and  all  defendants  before  the  court  have  the  right 
of  appeal  to  the  supreme  court,  over  which  the  superintendent  presides.  There  has 
been  but  one  appeal  in  over  three  years. 

I  have  now  shown  that  from  the  scientific,  humane,  pedagogical  and  industrial 
standpoints,  we  have  fully  guarded  the  interest  and  welfare  of  the  boy.  Self- 
government  has  nothing  to  do  with  any  of  these  matters.  We  all  recognize  the  folly, 
yes,  even  crime,  of  putting  such  matters  into  the  hands  of  untrained  adults,  to  say 
nothing  about  boys.  Still,  in  the  average  state  institutions  these  vital  matters  are 
in  the  hands  of  untrained  adults  who  are  little,  if  any  heller  equipped  to  handle  them 
than  immature  boys. 

Let  us  now  examine  the  field  left  open  for  the  exercise  of  self-government.  It  is 
a  rather  restricted  field  to  be  sure,  but  from  the  viewpoint  of  (lie  hoy  it  is  the  most 

19  Preston  School  of  Industry.      Biennial  Report.     1916. 

hcrrii  k,  Calvin:  "Segregation,  Self  Government  and  State  Control."  American 
Prison  Association.      1916:  77-94. 


A  BASIS  FOR  INDIVIDUALIZATION  121 

important,  leaving  just  about  the  same  activities  to  his  discretion  as  are  left  to  the 
discretion  of  boys  at  large,  namely,  the  social,  including  home,  playgrounds  and 
their  interrelations,  all  club  work,  home  study  and  discipline,  the  military  affairs,  and 
certain  unskilled  lines  of  manual  labor.  It  is  within  this  field  somewhere  that  boys 
fail  before  coming  to  us;  because  they  were  anti-social,  or  else  the  people  charged 
with  the  responsibility  of  their  training  fail  to  understand  them,  that  is:  they  fail 
to  make  the  boys  see  the  necessity  or  at  least  the  desirability  of  conforming  to  the 
set  order  of  things.  The  first,  last  and  only  business  of  the  state  school  is  to  enable 
the  boy  to  return  to  free  society  fully  understanding  his  social  relations  and  respon- 
sibilities toward  others — socially,  morally  and  industrially.  In  other  words,  we  are 
asked  to  roform  boys.     .     .     . 

Reformation  is  accomplished  through  a  change  of  mind,  a  new  viewpoint,  and 
new  and  wholesome  interest  in  life,  and  a  growing  consciousness  of  one's  power  to 
succeed.  To  successfully  direct  and  train  a  boy,  you  must  start  with  his  viewpoint. 
It  may  be  all  wrong,  and  probably  is,  but  it  is  his  view  of  things,  and  either  you  must 
make  your  plans  coincide  with  his  views  or  else  change  his  views.  In  the  beginning 
it  is  generally  easier  to  do  the  former.  In  the  next  place  the  boy  must  be  made  a 
concrete  factor  in  a  variety  of  interests  and  activities  where  the  unavoidable  cir- 
cumstances of  his  life  force  him  to  accept  and  continue  to  carry  ever-increasing 
responsibilities,  which,  however,  become  his  as  a  result  of  deliberate  choice,  never  by 
force.  I  am  not  to  be  understood  as  saying  that  you  cannot  train  a  boy  through 
force.  One  may,  but  such  a  training  is  negative.  The  boy  does  not  develop;  he 
submits  and  becomes  colorless,  or  rebels  and  becomes  hardened.  If  he  develops,  he 
develops  excuses  and  cunning  rather  than  effort  and  reason.  These  boys  do  not 
understand  our  civilization,  or  at  least  they  do  not  fit  into  it.  Self-government 
starting  with  the  boy's  view  enables  him  to  work  out  a  civil  and  social  order  of  his 
own,  which  he  approves  and  understands.  He  has  just  as  many  opportunities  for 
wrong  decisions  as  for  right  ones,  just  as  many  chances  to  go  wrong  as  to  go  right. 
If  he  goes  wrong  he  is  not  combatting  the  social  order  of  his  mental  and  social  superiors 
in  a  civilization  which  he  cannot  respect,  but  he  is  combatting  his  social  and  mental 
peers  whom  he  understands  and  must  respect.  His  comfort,  happiness  and  progress 
depend  upon  his  social  relations;  his  social  relations  depend  upon  his  free  choice 
of  conduct  in  the  field  of  self-government.  This,  then,  is  the  starting  point  for  the 
boy:  to  make  him  conscious  that  he  is  a  free  moral  agent  and  that  his  every  decision 
affects  his  own  life  and  status,  and  at  Preston  he  makes  that  start  the  day  he  arrives. 

Let  me  now  get  before  you  clearly  two  things:  first,  that  self-government,  as 
interpreted  and  applied  at  Preston  School,  is  not  an  end,  but  a  means  to  a  very  definite 
purpose.  In  his  many  tours  and  lectures,  as  well  as  in  his  two  books,  Mr.  William 
R.  George,  the  founder  of  juvenile  self-government,  so  emphasized  the  courts  and  the 
jail  system  that  most  people  came  to  feel  that  self-government  among  boys  was 
concerned  chiefly  with  their  prosecuting  one  another.  This  is  not  the  main  object 
of  self-government,  although  it  serves  a  very  definite  purpose  and  affords  a  splendid 
training  in  a  variety  of  ways.  The  second  thought  is  this:  that  these  boys  all  failed 
in  our  civilization.  We  did  not  understand  them  nor  they  us.  The  home,  school, 
church  and  city  have  each  in  turn  failed  to  make  the  boy  fit  into  the  approved  and 
established  civilization.     The  boy  either  could  not  or  would  not  fit.     Does  it  not 


122  THE  PASSING  OF  THE  COUNTY  JAIL 

seem  to  you  absurd  to  suppose  that  we  can  place  him  in  an  institution  which  forces 
a  much  higher  and  more  nearly  perfect  social  order  upon  him,  and  is  wholly  repressive 
in  its  application,  and  expect  him  to  develop  a  character  and  individuality  which  will 
allow  him  to  succeed  any  better  upon  his  return  to  our  social  order  in  which  he  had  for 
years  failed?  The  sole  object  of  self-government  is  to  furnish  a  medium  in  which 
the  boys  may  develop  a  civilization  of  their  own  with  as  many  degrees  and  gradations 
as  is  necessary  to  meet  their  needs  and  interests,  the  ideal  being  to  come  as  close 
to  our  standard  of  civilization  as  possible. 

We  started  in  basements  with  boys  under  the  strictest  state  control.  They 
were  granted  two  hours  a  day  of  self-government  under  the  eyes  of  officers.  A  very 
brief  and  faulty  constitution  was  given  them.  Each  company's  constitution  differed. 
They  could  not  agree  as  to  a  set  of  rules,  each  company  being  actuated  by  purely 
selfish  motives  in  securing  everything  it  could  for  itself  at  the  expense  of  the  other 
companies.  They  could  not  even  agree  among  themselves  that  civil  government 
is  a  good  thing,  but  two  companies  insisted  on  a  military  government  and  were 
allowed  to  work  this  experiment  out  and  compete  with  the  civil  government  com- 
panies. Civil  government  companies  won,  and  at  the  end  of  fourteen  months  the 
military  companies  applied  for  a  constitution  and  admission  to  the  Republic. 

Time  will  not  permit  me  to  show  the  development  of  the  movement.  I  wrote 
and  placed  in  operation  the  first  constitution  and  administered  the  first  court,  training 
the  boys  in  a  crude  way.  The  constitution  was  intentionally  very  faulty.  A  casual 
reading  carried  the  impression  that  a  great  deal  of  liberty  had  been  granted,  but  in 
the  court,  the  judge,  and  out  of  the  court,  the  citizens,  were  very  closely  restricted 
when  they  came  to  study  the  document.  This  was  intentional  on  my  part.  It 
was  not  long  before  I  had  a  committee  visiting  me,  asking  for  a  more  liberal  constitu- 
tion. This  was  what  I  was  aiming  at — the  development  of  their  initiative.  I 
prescribed  certain  limits,  territories  and  restrictions,  and  told  them  to  do  as  they 
liked  within  this  field.  They  did  so.  Within  eighteen  months  we  had  four  con- 
stitutions, each  a  great  improvement  over  the  former. 

A  difference  of  opinion  as  to  the  interpretation  of  the  constitution  gave  rise  to 
political  parties;  the  confusion  resulting  in  courts  by  reason  of  each  company  having 
different  laws  and  penalties  for  the  same  offense  gave  birth  to  the  House  of  Congress; 
congressmen  could  not  agree  as  to  which  laws  should  be  abolished  and  which  retained. 
This  resulted  in  the  formation  of  a  commission  to  draw  up  a  code  of  civil  and  penal 
procedure,  and  a  body  of  uniform  law.  The  commission  developed,  after  its  purpose 
had  been  accomplished,  into  a  bar  association,  after  which  time,  all  boys  who  became 
applicants  for  the  position  of  judges,  district  attorneys,  or  clerks  of  court,  as  well  as 
those  who  wished  to  practice  law  before  the  courts,  were  obliged  to  pass  an  examina- 
tion before  the  bar  association. 

The  code  of  laws  caused  the  formation  of  a  prison  to  enforce  the  mandates  of 
the  court.  Political  graft  by  the  warden  showed  the  necessity  of  some  reform  in  the 
matter  of  appointments  to  office.  A  civil  service  commission  and  law  were  enacted 
by  the  succeeding  congress.  Because  the  government  now  had  prisoners  to  care  for, 
it  had  to  have  work  to  busy  them  with;  therefore,  a  commissioner  of  labor  was  created 
and  made  a  member  of  the  president's  cabinet,  and  a  certain  field  of  rough,  unskilled 
labor  put  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  government. 


A  BASIS  FOR  INDIVIDUALIZATION  123 

A  certain  politician  among  the  boys,  who  was  running  for  office,  was  ele<  ted  by 
crooked  work  in  the  receiving  company,  the  members  of  which  were  not  well  vei 
in  the  politics  of  the  place.  The  next  congress  created  a  Board  of  Naturalization 
and  made  it  a  part  of  the  department  of  labor.  All  boys  entering  the  school  after 
that  time  had  to  be  naturalized  before  they  could  vote,  the  naturalization  calling 
for  the  completion  of  a  certain  course  of  study  which  requires  three  months  to  complete. 
The  civil  service  law  and  the  recall  made  the  officials  much  more  careful  and  ambi- 
tious in  the  performance  of  their  duties,  but  it  took  practically  all  of  their  time. 
The  next  congress  passed  the  compensation  act,  which  allowed  these  officials  extra 
credits  for  their  official  duties. 

The  third  congress  made  application  for  the  control  of  the  military  training  of 
the  school.  It  was  granted  and  a  secretary  of  military  affairs  was  added  to  the 
president's  cabinet,  and  acts  as  an  aide-de-camp  to  the  military  instructor.  The 
congress  then  passed  military  inspection  laws  by  the  terms  of  which  every  member 
of  a  company  became  responsible  for  every  other  member's  inspection.  That  is,  if 
one  boy  in  a  company  lost  a  certain  number  of  credits  for  any  infraction,  like  loss  of 
button,  dirty  rifle,  etc.,  every  member  in  the  company  suffered  the  same  loss.  That 
is,  they  had  now  arrived  at  a  stage  where  they  realized,  as  a  group,  that  the  liberty 
and  safety  of  all  depended  upon  each  inidividual  doing  his  part,  while  the  individual 
had  learned  that  he  could  not  do  as  he  pleased  without  injury  to  everyone  else  in  his 
group.  I  considered  the  passage  of  these  laws  a  marvelous  advance  in  social  and 
moral  responsibility  and  understanding  of  the  boys. 

The  government  began  to  feel  an  interest  in  the  possibilities  of  the  new  material 
arriving  at  the  school,  and  asked  permission  to  establish  night  school  in  the  receiving 
company.  This,  of  course,  was  granted.  Out  of  this  grew  the  Commission  on 
Social  Affairs.  The  commissioner  of  social  affairs  met  with  the  president's  cabinet, 
though  not  a  member  thereof.  He  established  clubs,  organized  orchestras,  glee 
clubs,  etc.,  until  there  are  now  twelve  such  organizations,  three  orchestras  and  two 
quartets.  The  social  commissioner  is  allowed  to  draw  upon  the  commissary  and 
kitchen  each  evening  for  sufficient  cocoa,  sugar,  cookies,  sandwiches  and  other  neces- 
sary material  to  make  a  real  sociable  time  for  the  club  he  is  visiting  that  evening. 
Needless  to  say,  the  social  commissioner  is  the  most  popular  man  in  the  government. 

The  present  administration  has  placed  before  mc  a  proposition  to  permit  the 
government  to  operate  a  store  for  the  benefit  of  the  boys  and  to  put  into  operation 
a  system  of  coinage.  I  have  agreed  to  permit  it,  if  they  can  work  out  a  feasible  plan 
that  I  can  with  prudence  approve. 

In  the  three  and  a  half  years  I  have  been  at  Preston,  I  have  never  once  interfered 
in  their  field  of  government.  If  a  company  becomes  lax  or  indifferent  toward  its 
duties  and  obligations,  and  its  standards  of  citizenship  fall  below  a  certain  fixed  line, 
it  automatically  loses  its  constitution  and  goes  under  state  control,  thereby  giving 
up  a  great  many  of  its  privileges.  This  has  happened  twice.  It  takes  a  company 
from  six  months  to  a  year  to  regain  its  charter.     We  have  little  trouble  in  this  respect. 

I  have  never  vetoed  a  law,  reversed  a  judgment,  altered  or  set  aside  any  proclama- 
tion of  the  president,  adjourned  a  congress,  or  declined  to  consider  any  kind  of  a 
proposition  whatsoever,  nor  have  I  pornv'tt?d  any  of  my  officers  to  do  any  of  these 
things.     .     .     . 


124  THE  PASSING  OF  THE  COUNTY  JAIL 

.  .  .  It  is,  of  course,  to  be  expected  that  the  superintendent  as  well  as  many 
other  officers  frequently  suggest  things,  frequently  encourage  initiative,  and  in  every 
way  foster  its  application  to  new  fields  of  endeavor,  but  the  accomplishment,  the 
advancement,  the  actual  thinking  out  and  getting  into  operation  the  desirable  thing, 
is  always  and  under  all  circumstances,  the  work,  ingenuity,  and  push  of  the  boys.    .    .    . 

Let  me  now  detail  just  for  a  moment  the  life  of  the  new  boy.  It  must  be  evident 
that  the  average  boy  arriving  at  the  institution  comes  in  a  nervous  and  unsettled 
state  of  mind,  full  of  apprehension  and  dread,  and  uncertain  of  his  present  status  or 
his  future  opportunities.  He  is  taken  in  charge  by  a  cadet  official  and  while  he  is 
being  bathed,  shaved,  inspected,  and  clothed,  the  boy  official  and  the  new  arrival 
become  acquainted.  The  boy  official  starts  the  arrival  off  on  the  right  foot,  advising 
him  of  the  advantages  and  disadvantages  of  life  under  the  government,  or  life  in  the 
companies  under  the  state.  He  is  made  aware  that  his  release  depends  upon  his 
record  and  his  ability  to  earn  7,000  credits.  He  is  placed  in  a  receiving  company  with 
a  certain  amount  of  privileges,  and  allowed  to  earn  seven  credits  a  day  for  the  first 
month.  Below  him  is  a  company  with  less  liberty  and  five  credits  a  day;  above 
him,  companies  with  much  greater  liberty  and  earning  up  to  twenty  credits  a  day. 
He  must  remain  in  the  receiving  company  three  months,  then  he  automatically  moves 
up  or  down.  In  order  to  go  up,  he  must  have  completed  a  course  of  study  in  Preston 
School  citizenship,  pass  an  examination,  and  be  naturalized  under  the  laws  of  the 
self-government. 

Now,  note  that  he  is  not  obliged  to  take  this  course  of  study,  but  if  he  is  to 
advance  his  own  interests,  gain  more  privileges  and  more  credits,  live  under  better 
conditions,  he  must  exert  himself  from  the  very  start  and  take  advantage  of  the  first 
opportunity  offered  by  the  state  and  the  self-government.  Almost  every  boy  will 
quickly  do  this  because  it  becomes  his  selfish  interest  to  do  so.  He  is  able  to  see 
quick  return  from  his  effort.  The  spirit,  determination  and  excellence  with  which 
he  undertakes  and  completes  this  first  set  of  examinations  greatly  influence  his  school, 
cottage  and  trade  advancement.  If,  therefore,  he  proves  unstable,  sulky,  or  displays 
the  qualities  of  a  quitter,  he  is  responsible  to  himself  alone  for  a  smaller  number  of 
credits  and  delay  in  entering  a  trade.  But  if  he  succeeds,  the  fourth  month  he  may 
earn  eleven  credits  a  day.  However,  at  any  time  he  fails  to  maintain  either  his  work 
or  conduct  record  as  thus  established  by  the  three  months'  effort,  he  may  slide  back 
to  third  class  and  five  credits  a  day.  He  is  not  required  by  us  to  do  either,  but  it 
is  greatly  to  his  interest  to  constantly  advance  his  standards. 

Don't  you  see  that  the  only  thing  we,  the  system,  really  require  of  any  boy  is  a 
choice,  a  decision — he  musl  de<  ide  something,  up  or  down;  he  cannot  drift,  but 
which  it  shall  be  is  always  "up"  to  the  boy;  not  even  a  question  of  advice  from  us 
unless  he  asks  it,  in  these  particular  matters.  If  he  chooses  the  opposite  course,  he 
must  remain  longer;  he  will  not  be  sure  of  parole  when  he  earns  7,000  credits;  he  will 
not  learn  a  trade;  he  will  not  enjoy  much  of  the  privileges  of  Preston;  he  must  live 
under  very  strict  rule  and  do  the  most  disagreeable  work. 

In  other  words,  if  we  can  surround  him  with  the  proper  conditions,  we  find 
that  the  defective  and  delinquent  boy  will  respond  to  precisely  the  same  appeals 
and  selfish  interest  which  keep  you  and  me  at  work;  that  is:  the  love  of  better  living 
conditions,  entertainment,  distinction,  hope  of  greater  personal  rewards,  etc.     The 


A  BASIS  FOR  INDIVIDUALIZATION  125 

self-government  supplies  every  one  of  these  desirable-  elements  for  our  purpose, 
because  it  presents  a  large  number  of  well  graded  opportunities,  requires  constant 
effort,  quickly  rewards  the  effort,  appeals  to  the  ambitious,  offers  a  clear  and  very 
broad  field  for  initiative,  fosters  personal  distinction,  requires  a  declaration  of  prin- 
ciples, a  high  standard  of  ideals,  a  reasonable  devotion  to  duty  for  the  good  and 
comfort  of  others,  a  responsibility  toward  the  community  and  a  definite  interest  in 
the  public  good. 

This  is  the  most  successful  instance,  of  which  we  know,  of  prac- 
tical individualization.  First  there  is  a  social  diagnosis,  including 
physical  and  mental  examinations,  study  of  heredity  and  environ- 
ment of  the  offender.  On  the  basis  of  this  diagnosis  he  is  assigned  to 
a  group — not  a  mere  collection  of  delinquents,  but — a  social  organiza- 
tion.20 He  is  a  vital  part  of  the  group,  influencing  and  being 
influenced  by  the  other  members.  He  is  not  the  passive  recipient 
of  treatment,  but  is  actively  cooperating  with  his  associates  in  solving 
his  immediate  social  problems,  and  in  gradually  working  himself 
out  into  the  larger  and  more  complex  society  in  which  he  had  pre- 
viously failed. 

His  assignment  within  the  institution  is  not  based  on  his  being  like 
the  others  in  his  company,  although  it  is  important  that  differences 
should  not  be  too  great  at  first.  It  is  recognized  that  he  is  a  distinct 
personality.  The  very  fact  of  his  individual  characteristics  make- 
possible  the  process  of  reformation  which  has  been  described.  It  is 
necessary  for  him  to  learn  to  get  along  with  other  people,  to  make 
social  adjustments.  Life  outside  institution  walls  consists  in  one  of 
its  aspects  in  just  this.21 

Now  on  such  a  basis  as  this,  individualization  becomes  practicable. 
The  fact  of  individual  differences,  which  is  a  matter  of  every-day 
observation,  gave  us  our  cue,  but  did  not  provide  us  with  a  working 

20  It  is  a  small  and  more  or  less  externally  controlled  group,  to  be  sure,  but  never- 
theless, a  genuine  group.  The  life  together  in  a  cottage,  in  school,  at  work,  at  play, 
and  most  of  all  as  a  relatively  self-governing  "state,"  makes  a  social  organization 
that  means  something.  Compare  this  concrete  situation  with  the  general  statements 
of: 

Cooley,  Chas.  II.:    "Social  Organization."     New  York.      1911. 
Ross,  Edward  A.:    '-Social  Control."     New  York.     1901. 

21  The  way  in  which  these  adjustments  are  made,  or  better,  the  way  in  which  the 
individual  participates  in  and  is  himself  made  by  the  group  life  is  simply  stated  by: 

Cooley,  Chas.  II.:    "Human  Nature  and  the  Social  Order."     New  York.     1910. 
Thomas,  Win.  I.:    "Source  Book  for  Social  Origins."     Chicago.     1909. 
Dewey,  John,  and  Tufts,  Jas.H.:   "Ethics."     New  York.     1909. 


126  THE  PASSING  OF  THE  COUNTY  JAIL 

program.  But  in  the  social  nature  of  the  individual,  in  group  life,  we 
have  not  only  a  more  adequate  theoretical  statement,  we  have  also  a 
very  definite  basis  on  which  to  proceed  in  practise. 

Perhaps  we  may  be  helped  by  an  analogy.  A  physician  indivi- 
dualizes his  patients  more  or  less  both  in  diagnosis  and  treat- 
ment. Dr.  Cabot  has  shown22  how  the  same  symptoms  may  prove  to 
be  due  to  widely  different  combinations  of  causal  factors.  So  it  is 
probable  that  no  two  patients  will  be  just  exactly  alike.  However, 
they  will  have  points  of  similarity,  and  the  same  diagnosis  may  be 
made  in  many  cases.  But  after  the  diagnosis  has  been  made  and  the 
case  has  been  pronounced,  e.g.,  one  of  tuberculosis,  it  is  necessary  to 
vary  the  prognosis  and  treatment  in  accordance  with  numerous 
factors.  The  outlook  for  recovery  will  depend  on  age,  habits,  econo- 
mic status,  etc.,  of  the  patient.  The  treatment  likewise  must  be 
varied,  especially  to  meet  varying  social  conditions.  The  willingness 
and  ability  of  relatives  and  friends  to  help  intelligently  must  be 
considered  quite  as  much  as  the  bodily  condition  of  the  sick  man  him- 
self. If  his  home  does  not  provide  a  suitable  social  situation,  the 
patient  may  be  removed  to  a  sanitarium.  There  he  will  have  not 
merely  medical  facilities  and  attendance;  he  will  (it  is  hoped)  be  in  a 
group  whose  members  are  bent  on  recovery  of  health.  The  hours  for 
eating,  sleeping  and  perhaps  exercising  are  organized  there  in  a  way 
that  might  be  impossible  in  the  home.  Competition  with  well  persons 
is  removed.  So  far  as  possible,  a  social  situation  has  been  created 
in  which  the  patient  can  make  adjustments  and  through  solving  the 
relatively  simple  problems  can  become  able  to  meet  difficulties  of 
increasing  complexity. 

Individualization  has  at  least  three  aspects:  (1)  individualiza- 
tion in  diagnosis,  (2)  individualization  in  prognosis  and  prescription 
— estimating  the  outlook  for  recovery  and  planning  a  course  of 
treatment,  (3)  individualization  in  treatment,  letting  the  delinquent 
"be  somebody"  in  a  restricted  society. 

We  may  well  emphasize  again  the  fact  that  this  does  not  mean  a 
separate  program,  separate  room,  separate  care-taker  for  each 
offender.  It  does  not  treat  the  individual  as  an  isolated  unit.  On  the 
contrary,  it  studies  the  individual  delinquent  in  his  social  relations, 
because  the  problem   which  he  presents  is  after  all  one  of  social 

"Cabot,  Richard  C:    "Differential  Diagnosis."     Philadelphia.     1911. 


A  BASIS  FOR  INDIVIDUALIZATION  127 

relations.  Medical  and  psychological  examinations  and  field  studies 
are  made  for  the  purpose  of  learning  to  understand  the  offender  in  his 
social  as  well  as  in  Ids  individual  aspect.  In  the  treatment  similarly 
he  is  no  longer  dealt  with  according  to  the  old  "Pennsylvania  sys- 
tem." He  is  pla<  id  in  a  new  social  group.  New  social  relations  are 
substituted  for  those  which  presented  the  problem  of  his  delin- 
quency. In  both  the  old  and  the  new  situation  his  social  relations 
are  distinctive  and  unique,  which  is  just  another  way  of  saying  that 
he  is  an  individual. 

In  other  words,  individualization  of  offenders  is  only  one  aspect  of 
their  reformation.  'J' lie  other  side  of  it  is  socialization.  These  are  not 
two  distinct  entities.  They  are  simply  different  ways  of  getting  at 
the  same  thing.  Because  man  is  what  he  is,  we  cannot  have  the  one 
without  the  other. 


CHAPTER  VI 

A  Unified  Correctional  System 

We  may  summarize  the  outcome  of  our  studies  down  to  the  pre- 
sent in  the  following  four  propositions: 

1.  The  county  jail  system  is  unutterably  bad,  but  it  seems  to  be 
giving  way  in  two  directions — individualization  and  centralization. 

2.  Individual  misdemeanants  present  so  many  different  traits 
and  so  many  different  problems,  that  no  set  of  fixed  penalties  can  meet 
their  various  needs.  The  things  worth  emphasizing  are  their  indivi- 
dual differences  and  their  common  humanity. 

3.  In  no  important  way  can  misdemeanants  be  distinguished 
from  felons  as  a  group.  Hence  there  seems  to  be  no  good  reason  for 
maintaining  two  distinct  sets  of  institutions — state  prisons  and  local 
jails. 

4.  These  facts  seem  to  point  the  way  very  definitely  toward 
individualization  through  a  unified  correctional  system. 

In  the  last  chapter  we  indicated  the  sort  of  individualization  that 
appears  both  feasible  and  wrorth  while.  The  problems  of  its  practical 
application  are: 

1.  To  study  each  offender  in  order  to  learn,  so  far  as  possible,  in 
what  sort  of  a  group  and  under  what  other  circumstances  he  is  likely 
to  make  successful  adjustments,  i.e.,  to  get  along  with  other  people. 

2.  To  form  groups  of  prisoners  likely  to  develop  together,  and  to 
establish  progressive  conditions  under  which  their  development  is 
likely  to  take  place. 

Fortunately  we  do  not  have  to  proceed  altogether  in  the  dark. 
There  are  several  suggestive  precedents  to  guide  us.  Perhaps  the 
most  important  is  New  York's  new  clearing-house  plan  for  felons.1 

1  Lane,  Winthrop  ]).:    "Sing  Sing's  Swan  Song."     Survey,  39:  186-7. 
(.lueck,  Bernard:   "Types  of  Delinquent  Careers."     Mental  Hygiene,  1:  171-195. 
"The  Rebuilding  of  Sing  Sing  Prison."     Delinquent.     Sept.,  V)\7.     pp.  3-5. 
Jaffray,  Julia  K.  (Editor):     "The  Prison  and  the  Prisoner."    A  Symposium. 
Boston.     1  «>  1 7 . 

Lewis  Burdette  G.:    "The  Offender."     New  York.     I'M 7. 

128 


\   [INTEIED  CORBECTIONAL  SYSTEM  1  2<> 

The  plan  of  utilizing  Sing  Sins;  as  a  Reception  Prison  wa  firsl  promulgated  by 
the  New  \'ork  State  Commission  on  Prison  Reform  in  its  preliminary  report  published 
in  1914.  The  Commission  recommended  that  the  Sing  Sing  site  should  be  abandoned 
as  a  prison,  and  that  to  it  all  prisoners  sentenced  in  New  York  State  should  be  sent 
for  medical  examination,  observation,  and  for  study  of  their  character  and  aptitude, 
before  being  disposed  of  in  pursuance  of  the  sentence  of  the  court. 

The  proposition  passed  through  a  period  of  discussion  to  its  recognition  in  the 
law  of  1916  which  provided  for  a  new  Sing  Sing  prison  and  the  conversion  of  old 
Sing    Sing    into   a   scientific    receiving   station.      Psychiatric    and    medical   exp 
have  already  taken  up  their  abode  at  Sing  Sing.     .     .     } 

Sing  Sing,  then,  is  lo  serve  as  a  receiving  station  or  clearing-house 
for  all  persons  committed  to  the  state  prisons  of  New  York.  Here 
they  are  to  receive  physical  and  mental  examinations.  They  are  to  be 
detained  while  field  workers  secure  their  social  history.  They  are  to 
receive  such  medical,  dental  and  other  treatment  as  may  be  necessary 
or  practicable  while  awaiting  more  final  disposition.  Dr.  Glueck 
indicates  that  the  receiving  station  will  have  (1)  administrative 
functions,  (2)  medical  department,  (3)  psychiatric  clinic,  (4)  voca- 
tional guidance,  (5)  educational  guidance,  (6)  religious  guidance. 
He  anticipates  that  the  offenders  will  be  classified  into  five  large 
divisions:  (1)  the  normal,  who  are  capable  of  learning  a  trade,  (2) 
normal,  especially  suited  for  agriculture,  (3)  insane  delinquents, 
(4)  defective  delinquents,  (5)  psychopathic  delinquents.  These  will 
all  go  from  the  courts  to  the  receiving  prison,  from  which  they  will  be 
distributed,  after  staying  perhaps  three  to  six  months,  to  five  institu- 
tions: the  first  group  (vide  supra)  to  Clinton  and  Auburn,  the  indus- 
trial prisons;  the  second  group  to  Great  Meadow,  the  farm  prison; 
the  third  and  part  of  the  fifth  to  Dannemora,  to  be  the  institution  for 
criminal  insane;  the  fourth  and  the  rest  of  the  fifth  to  a  new  institu- 
tion for  defective  delinquents. 

Already  the  administration  of  penal  institutions  within  many  slate 
has  been  centralized  in  the  hands  of  a  single  officer,  board  or  commis- 
sion.3   But  with  the  very  few  exceptions  noted  in  the  second  chapter, 

1  Jaffray.     Op.  cit.     p.  30. 

'  See  reports  of: 

Iowa  State  Board  of  Control,  Wisconsin  State  Board  of  Control,  Illinois  Depart- 
ment of  Public  Welfare,  Rhode  Island  Board  of  State  Charities  and  Corrections, 
New  York  State  Commission  of  Prisons,  California  State  Board  of  Prison  Directors. 

These  represent  some  of  the  most  significant  forms  of  centralization  of  adminis 
tration  of  state  penal  institutions,  either  as  a  distinct  correctional  system,  or  in 
connection  with  other  institutions. 


130  THE  PASSING  OF  THE  COUNTY  JAIL 

only  institutions  for  felons  are  included.  Indiana  has  perhaps  come 
nearer  than  any  other  state  to  making  the  care  of  misdemeanants  a 
part  of  the  state  correctional  system.  But  the  significant  feature  of 
the  New  York  plan  for  felons  is  that  something  far  more  important 
than  business  management  is  centralized.  The  treatment  of  the 
offenders  is  being  put  on  such  a  basis  that  genuine  individualization 
will  be  practicable. 

To  appreciate  the  full  significance  of  the  New  York  forward  step, 
it  will  be  well  to  contrast  it  with  some  other  policies  already  adopted 
or  projected.  First,  let  us  see  how  it  differs  from  the  use  of  "expert 
testimony"  in  trials;  second,  from  clinical  examination  as  part  of  the 
court  procedure;  third,  from  clinical  examination  in  the  institutions. 

We  need  not  base  any  argument  on  the  possible  venal  character  of 
some  "experts"  which  brings  the  fields  of  medicine,  psychiatry  and 
psychology  into  disrepute.  We  may  rest  our  case  on  a  more  funda- 
mental defect  pointed  out  by  Dr.  Glueck.4 

Many  of  us  are  still  willing  to  stake  our  reputation  as  physicians  on  the  witness 
stand  when  engaged  by  an  obliging  prosecuting  attorney  to  assist  him  in  proving 
the  responsibility  of  the  accused  for  his  act.  Although  we  are  disposed  to  grant 
that  there  might  be  some  mental  abnormality  in  the  case,  we  are  quite  certain  that 
his  madness  had  not  progressed  far  enough  to  exclude  a  knowledge  of  the  difference 
between  right  and  wrong.  The  law,  dealing  as  it  does  with  the  problem  of  crime  in 
a  wholly  impersonal  manner  and  concerned  as  it  is  with  the  administration  of  the 
criminal  act  rather  than  with  the  understanding  of  the  criminal  back  of  the  act,  is 
satisfied  with  such  conception  of  mental  disease.  In  the  legal  mythology,  an  offender 
is  either  a  free  rational  agent,  acting  deliberately  and  in  full  consciousness  of  con- 
sequences, or  he  is  demonstrably  demented. 

The  difficulties  of  "expert  testimony"  are  further  set  forth  by  Dr. 
Paul  E.  Bowers,  Medical  Superintendent  of  the  Indiana  Hospital  for 
Insane  Criminals,  in  presenting  the  "necessity  for  medical  examina- 
tion of  prisoners  at  the  time  of  trial.'"' 

The  medical  examination  of  prisoners  would  correct,  in  a  large  measure,  the 
evils  that  attend  the  employment  of  medical  experts.  Much  of  the  criticism  that  is, 
unjustly  and  malignantly,  heaped  upon  the  qualified  psychiatrist  would  be  done  away 
with  and  many  of  the  unqualified  practitioners,  who  are  posing  as  mental  experts 
and  thereby  bringing  ill  repute  upon  the  medical  profession,  would  be  eliminated 
from  court  practice.     It  is  the  height  of  medical  absurdity  to  permit  a  general  prac- 

4  Mental  Hygiene,  2:  548-549. 

•American  Prison  Association.     1(>1(>:  114-122. 


A  UNIFIED  CORRECTIONAL  SYSTEM  131 

titioncr  who  is  without  knowledge  and  experience  in  psychiatry  to  give  opinions  and 
statements  in  courts  which  arc  likely  to  affect  the  life  or  libert)  of  an  individual. 
Our  present  method  of  employing  expert  testimony  is  productive  of  but  little  good, 
and  a  great  deal  of  harm.  Our  present  system  makes  it  impossible  for  the  alienist, 
no  matter  how  well  qualified  and  honest,  to  give  testimony  that  is  entirely  Si 
factory  to  his  own  conscience  and  to  the  merits  of  the  case  in  hand. 

The  physicians  are  hired  by  the  plaintiff  and  the  defendant  and  pitted  against 
one  another  in  a  wordy  battle  for  the  display  of  wits  by  lawyers  who  are  skilled 
rhetoricians,  and  who,  cunningly  and  skillfully,  by  use  of  dialectics,  suppress  medical 
facts  dangerous  to  their  own  purposes  and  lay  undue  stress  on  non-essentials  if  they 
can  thereby  gain  any  advantage  over  their  opponents.  Very  equivocal,  hypothetical 
questions  are  presented  which  are  often  not  supported  by  salient  facts,  and  the  doctor 
is  required  to  answer  the  unproved  statement-  without  the  privilege  of  due  and 
careful  consideration.  The  individual  of  the  hypothetical  question  and  the  person 
on  trial  often  seem  to  bear  only  the  faintest  traces  of  kinship  to  one  another. 

To  correct  some  of  the  wrongs  which  I  have  enumerated,  the  court  should 
appoint  a  physician  who  is  qualified  by  training  and  experience  in  the  science  and 
practice  of  psychiatry.  This  physician  should  be  a  part  of  the  personnel  of  the  court; 
and  it  should  be  his  duty  to  sociologically,  physically  and  mentally  examine  every 
prisoner  at  the  time  of  his  arrest  and  trial.  A  careful,  written,  detailed  report  should 
be  made  and  presented  to  the  court  for  the  instruction  of  the  judge  and  jurors. 

Reasons  such  as  these  pointed  out  by  Dr.  Glueck  and  Dr.  Bowers 
are  probably  responsible  for  the  fact  that  some  courts  have  as  part  of 
their  regular  personnel  physicians,  psychologists  or  psychiatrists. 
Thus  there  are  clinics  in  connection  with  the  municipal  courts  of  Chi- 
cago, Boston,  Philadelphia  and  doubtless  several  other  cities.6  But 
there  are  several  difficulties  which  the  court  clinic  has  to  face.  Even 
if  it  is  successful  in  making  a  satisfactory  medical-psychological-social 
diagnosis  of  the  accused,  the  court  is  limited — if  the  prisoner  be  found 
guilty — to  commitment,  usually  for  a  more  or  less  definite  period,  to  a 
single  institution,  or  at  most  a  choice  of  two  or  three.  In  other  words, 
there  is  a  gap  between  the  diagnosis  and  the  treatment.  The  only 
chance  to  follow  up  the  diagnosis  and  to  make  specific  use  of  it  occurs 
when  the  prisoner  is  put  on  probation.  Then  he  remains  under  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  same  court.  But  when  he  goes  to  an  institution, 
which  may  or  may  not  be  adapted  to  his  particular  needs,  there  is 
great  likelihood  of  the  clinical  record's  burial  in  some  document  file. 

•  Chicago.  Report  of  the  Psychopathic  Laboratory  of  the  Municipal  Court  of 
Chicago.     1914-1917. 

Boston.     Ninth  National  Probation  Association.     46-52. 
Philadelphia.     National  Conference  of  Social  Work.     1918:  132-9. 


132  THE  PASSING  OF  THE  COUNTY  JAIL 

But  even  more  fundamental — every  diagnosis  is  tentative,  subject 
lo  revision  as  treatment  proceeds;  and  it  is  impossible  for  the  court 
clinic  to  foresee  with  certainty  what  changes  in  treatment  must  be 
introduced  as  the  rehabilitation  goes  on.  This  difficulty  might  con- 
ceivably be  met  by  periodic  review  of  cases  by  the  committing  court. 
This  happens  in  some  juvenile  courts — e.g.,  the  California  Juvenile 
Court  Law  requires  that  court  orders  of  payment  for  the  care  of 
committed  children  must  be  renewed  every  six  months.  But  another 
effort  to  deal  with  the  situation  has  resulted  in  the  establishment  of 
clinics  in  various  institutions. 

Examples  of  institution  clinics  are  to  be  found  in  the  Chicago 
House  of  Correction,  Westchester  County  Penitentiary,  and  the 
Massachusetts  Reformatory  for  Women.7  The  trouble  here  is  that 
the  offender  has  been  sent  to  the  institution,  usually  without  possibil- 
ity of  recall,  before  the  clinic  gets  hold  of  him.  This  means  inevitably 
that  many  prisoners  will  be  found  who  cannot  take  advantage  of  the 
facilities  of  the  institution,  or  who  interfere  with  the  progress  of  other 
inmates.  Neither  "expert  testimony,"  court  clinics  nor  institution 
clinics  meet  the  situation  with  anything  like  the  degree  of  success 
which  the  New  York  plan  promises. 

It  seems,  then,  that  the  clearing-house  system  devised  for  New 
York  is  the  most  satisfactory  yet  considered.  But  it  fails  utterly  to 
help  the  misdemeanants.  If  we  have  found  correctly  that  there  is  no 
important  difference  between  misdemeanants  and  felons  as  a  group, 
the  same  correctional  organization  might  well  deal  with  all  adult 
offenders.  Unification  and  centralization  are  being  more  and  more 
accepted  as  working  principles  for  dealing  with  felons.  We  have 
found  no  valid  reason  for  doubting  their  applicability  to  misdemean- 
ants as  well. 

In  the  pages  which  follow  we  shall  outline  a  unified  correctional 
system  for  California.  In  order  to  make  our  proposition  concrete 
and  definite  it  has  seemed  necessary  to  select  some  particular  situa- 
tion; and  because  our  own  personal  experience  and  the  data  presented 
in  the  first  chapter  have  most  to  do  with  California  conditions,  thai 
state  has  been  chosen.  However,  if  the  principle  is  valid  for  Califor- 
nia, it  should  prove  applicable  to  other  states  as  will. 

7  Chicago.     Journal  of  Criminal  Law,  8:  837-84.?. 
Westchester.     Mental  Hygiene,  2:  59S  604. 

Massachusetts.     Journal  of  Criminal  Law,  5:  701  717. 


A    I   Mill  I)  <  (>Kkl.(    I  ION  \l.  SYSJ  KM  1  ^  J 

.1  Plan  Proposed  for  California 

In  presenting  this  plan  for  California  ii  is  importanl  to  empha 
two  ideas:  (1)  this  plan  is  by  no  means  regarded  as  perfect  or  final; 
ii  is  offered  primarily  for  the  purpose  of  provoking  discussion;  (2) 
although  it  is  California  about  which  we  are  speaking,  we  arc  inter- 
ested in  the  applicability  of  this  -(heme  to  any  stale.  With  these 
considerations  in  mind  we  shall  proceed  to  outline  the  possible  organi- 
zation of  a  unified  correctional  system  and  the  successive  steps  which 
it  might  take  in  handling  an  offender. 

As  to  organization  we  propose  a  single  state  department  to  be  known 
perhaps,  as  the  department  of  correction.  Our  precedents  for  this  are 
the  existing  state  departments,  already  referred  to,  which  centralize 
the  business  management  of  correctional  institutions,  together  with 
the  clearing-house  scheme  being  developed  in  New  York. 

The  final  authority  and  responsibility  within  the  department 
would  be  vested  in  an  unpaid,  nan- partisan  board,  appointed  by  the 
governor.  This  board  might  well  be  constituted,  as  is  the  present 
California  State  Board  of  Charities  and  Corrections,  of  six  members, 
of  both  sexes,  never  more  than  three  of  one  political  party,  represent- 
ing various  geographical,  religious,  occupational  and  other  social 
interests.  The  appointments  would  be  so  arranged  that  not  more 
than  two  members  of  the  board  would  go  out  of  office  in  the  same 
year. 

The  board  would  have  the  duty  of  determining  the  general  policies, 
reviewing  the  work  of  its  employes,  appointing  the  executive  officer 
and  passing  on  his  appointments  of  subordinates.  One  of  its  most 
important  tasks  would  be  to  decide  upon  the  uses  to  which  institu- 
tions should  be  put,  rearranging  and  reclassifying  as  experience  might 
dictate.  Thus,  if  the  enforcement  of  the  Harrison  Drug  Act  and  the 
National  Prohibition  Amendment  should  be  so  successful  as  to  reduce 
greatly,  if  not  practically  eliminate,  the  number  of  inebriates,  institu- 
tions now  devoted  to  their  care  could,  without  legislative  enactment, 
be  made  to  serve  other  purposes.  The  existence  of  such  a  board  wit  h 
the  powers  suggested  would,  we  believe,  make  for  flexibility  and 
much  more  effective  work  than  we  have  at  present. 

Under  this  single  department  of  correction  we  propose  to  central- 
ize the  administration  of  the  stale  prisons,  local  jails,  receiving 
stations,  clearing  houses,  probation  and  parole  for  all  adult  offender-. 
Naturally  an  unpaid  board  could  not  possibly  carry  the  details  of  so 


134  THE  PASSING  OF  THE  COUNTY  JAIL 

extensive  an  organization  personally  and  would  have  to  depend  very 
much  upon  its  executive  officer. 

In  view  of  this  fact,  the  question  may  be  raised:  why  have  the 
unpaid  board  at  all?  In  advocating  this  we  are  expressing  a  personal 
preference,  recognizing  the  fact  that  there  is  no  agreement  among 
"experts."  Such  unpaid  boards  have  been  tried  in  many  states,  but 
so  also  have  paid  boards  and  paid  executives  appointed  directly  by 
the  governor.  Our  own  opinion,  based  on  four  years'  experience  and 
a  study  of  the  systems  of  various  states,  is  that  such  an  unpaid  board 
will  attract  the  services  of  our  highest  type  of  citizens.  Thus,  Califor- 
nia has  unquestionably  had  in  its  State  Board  of  Charities  and  Cor- 
rections, free  of  charge,  the  invaluable  counsel,  the  public  spirit,  the 
broad  outlook  of  men  and  women  whose  time  could  not  be  bought. 

The  membership  of  the  board  has  included  ministers,  physicians, 
lawyers,  business  men,  university  professors  and  social  workers.  It 
has  at  all  times  had  representatives  of  the  three  great  faiths,  Protes- 
tant, Catholic  and  Jewish.  Being  thus  composed  of  men  and  women 
of  various  occupations,  religious  beliefs  and  political  connections, 
the  board  has  inspired  confidence  in  practically  all  elements  of  the 
population.  It  seems  to  be  pretty  generally  felt  and  accepted  as 
a  matter  of  fact  that  the  Board  of  Charities  and  Corrections  stands 
for  fair  play. 

The  provision  of  an  unpaid  board  with  a  paid  executive  appears 
to  be  the  best  way  of  combining  democratic  control  with  administra- 
tion by  specialists.  The  absence  of  salary  or  fees  for  the  board 
members  will  tend  to  limit  their  interference  with  matters  of  adminis- 
tration, in  addition  to  making  their  positions  relatively  unattractive  to 
party  politicians.  On  the  other  hand,  the  existence  of  the  board  guar- 
antees a  hearing  for  many  interests  in  the  discussion  of  policies.  It  is 
a  safeguard  against  more  rapid  development  than  public  opinion 
justifies,  for  if  the  executive  cannot  convince  the  majority  of  his 
board,  how  can  he  hope  to  have  the  support  of  the  public  which  they 
represent? 

The  executive  officer  would  be  responsible  to  the  board  for  the 
carrying  out  of  its  policies.  He  would  appoint  the  heads  of  sub- 
depart  ments  or  divisions,  and  they  would  be  accountable  to  him, 
subjeel ,  however,  to  confirmation  by  the  board.  Among  the  functions 
of  the  exe<  utive  would  be:  (1)  transmitting  decisions  of  the  board  to 
the  appropriate  division  i  hiefs,  (2)  holding  frequent  conferences  with 


\   UNIFIED  CORRECTIONAL  SYSTEM  1  15 

the  division  chiefs  or  directors  in  order  to  correlate  their  work  and 
make  the  unity  of  the  system  real,  (3)  presenting  problems  of  the 

various  divisions  and  of  their  interrelations  to  the  hoard,  assembling 
information  concerning  matters  about  which  questions  might  be 
raised,  (4)  preparing  a  budget  for  the  board's  consideration.  The 
appointment  and  tenure  of  office  for  the  executive  as  well  as  for  the 
remainder  of  the  staff  would  be  on  some  sort  of  a  merit  basis.  At  least 
qualifying  examinations,  probationary  appointment  and  prohibition 
of  removal  except  for  cause  would  be  elements  of  the  system. 

The  department  would  have  thirteen  divisions,  whose  chiefs  or 
directors  would  be  appointed  by  the  executive  officer,  subject  to 
confirmation  by  the  board.  They  would  be:  director  of  the  detention 
houses  or  jails,  director  of  the  receiving  stations,  director  of  the 
northern  clearing  house,  director  of  the  southern  clearing  house, 
director  of  prisons,  director  of  transportation  of  prisoners,  director  of 
probation  and  parole,  director  of  the  bureau  of  identification,  pur- 
chasing agent  (or  liaison  officer  between  the  department  of  correction 
and  the  state  purchasing  department),  director  of  construction, 
attorney,  director  of  research,  chief  clerk.  The  titles  of  these  division 
chiefs  indicate  roughly  the  organization  and  the  extent  of  work  the 
department  would  have. 

There  would  be  a  central  office,  say,  in  Sacramento.  One  of  the 
clearing  houses  would  be  located  in  or  near  San  Francisco,  the  other  in 
or  near  Los  Angeles.  Receiving  stations  would  be  located  at  conven- 
ient points,  possibly  thirteen  in  number,  over  the  state.  In  the 
central  office  would  be  the  executive,  the  director  of  jails,  director  of 
transportation,  director  of  receiving  stations,  director  of  prisons, 
director  of  probation  and  parole,  chief  of  identification  bureau,  direc- 
tor of  research,  purchasing  agent,  attorney,  director  of  construction 
and  chief  clerk. 

The  division  of  jails  and  houses  of  detention  would  take  over  the 
control  and  administration  of  all  jails  now  managed  by  local  authori- 
ties. The  actual  ownership  would  better  be  vested  in  the  state,  but 
it  might  be  necessary  to  commence  with  leasing.  The  director  of  this 
division  would  appoint  all  jailers,  who  would  be  state  officers.  As 
jailers,  they  would  not  have,  as  at  present,  any  connection  with  the 
office  of  sheriff  or  chief  of  police.  However,  in  cases  where  the  number 
of  prisoners  would  be  very  small  the  jailer  might  have  some  other 
public  duties.    He  might  be  a  town  or  county  officer  as  well  as  a  state 


136  THE  PASSING  OF  THE  COUNTY  JAIL 

officer.  But  for  his  management  of  the  jail  he  should  be  responsible 
to  the  state  department  directly. 

The  jails,  then,  would  be  used  exclusively  for  the  detention  of  per- 
sons temporarily  while  awaiting  or  undergoing  trial.  As  soon  as 
judgment  should  be  rendered,  the  prisoners  would  be  released  (if 
acquitted),  turned  over  to  a  probation  officer,  or  to  an  officer  of  the 
division  of  transportation  for  conveyance  to  a  receiving  station.  This 
would  mean  a  totally  different  type  of  jail  building.  Complete 
separation  of  every  prisoner  from  every  other  would  probably  be  wise 
for  the  relatively  brief  time  that  would  elapse  between  arrest  and 
judgment. 

The  division  of  transportation  would  be  a  distinct  innovation.  At 
present  persons  committed  to  a  California  state  prison  are  taken  by  a 
deputy  sheriff  to  San  Quentin  or  Folsom,  the  officer  receiving  a  five 
dollar  per  diem  in  addition  to  all  expenses  and  his  regular  salary.  It 
is  commonly  regarded  as  a  junket  trip.  In  place  of  this,  we  propose 
to  have  officers  specially  designated  for  the  duty  of  transporting  pris- 
oners between  jails,  receiving  stations,  clearing  houses  and  state 
prisons.  In  order  that  the  work  of  these  officers  might  be  correlated 
and  done  with  the  greatest  efficiency,  they  would  be  organized  into  a 
separate  division  and  made  subject  to  a  director  of  transportation. 
This  would  have  the  added  advantage  of  relieving  probation  and 
parole  officers  of  the  unpleasant  task  of  conducting  a  prisoner  to  an 
institution. 

Let  us  next  consider  the  division  of  receiving  stations.  In  the 
courts,  prisoners  would  either  be  released  or  made  wards  of  the  depart- 
ment of  correction.  If,  in  the  opinion  of  the  court,  probationary 
supervision  would  be  the  wisest  policy  for  a  given  offender,  he  might 
be  turned  over  to  the  nearest  probation  officer  as  a  representative  of 
the  state  department.  But  if  the  court  looked  forward  to  institu- 
tional care  or  expressed  no  opinion  in  the  matter  of  treatment,  the 
next  step  would  be  for  the  court  to  notify  the  division  of  transporta- 
tion through  the  jailer  that  a  prisoner  was  awaiting  transportation  to 
a  receiving  station. 

In  the  receiving  station  the  offender  would  receive  a  medical  and 
!•  etiological  or  psychiatri<  examination.  He  would  then  pass 
through  the  hands  of  an  identification  expert.  Social  field  workers 
would  seek  to  learn  his  personal  and  family  history — education,  occu- 
pation,  sicknesses,   hereditary   defects,   etc.      These   facts   would   be 


A  UNIFIED  CORRECTION  A  1.  SYS1  EM  137 

added  to  those  supplied  by  the  court  to  make  up  a  case  record.    For 
convenience  let  us  tall  this  proces-  and  result  a  "diagnosis." 

In  the  meantime,  the  offender  might  be  receiving  needed  medical, 
surgical,  dental  or  other  treatment.  He  should  be  provided  with 
some  occupation.  If  lacking  in  education,  he  might  be  given  some 
instruction. 

With  the  diagnosis  made,  the  offender  might  possibly  be  released, 
although  this  would  doubtless  be  exceedingly  rare.  He  might  be  put 
on  probation  and  turned  over  to  the  district  chief  probation  officer 
associated  with  the  receiving  station.  Or  he  might  present  problems 
of  such  difficulty  that  he  would  be  sent  to  a  clearing  house  for  further 
diagnosis.  No  person  would  be  sent  to  a  state  prison  for  confinement 
except  upon  the  decision  of  the  staff  of  one  of  the  two  clearing  houses. 

In  the  receiving  station  the  decision  as  to  the  disposition  of  a  case 
would  be  made  by  the  superintendent  in  consultation  with  the  spe- 
cialists on  his  staff — physician,  psychologist,  identification  expert, 
social  worker,  attorney.  In  all  cases  of  serious  disagreement,  as  well 
as  those  for  which  imprisonment  seemed  wise,  the  prisoner  would  be 
sent  to  a  clearing  house  with  his  full  case  history  so  far  as  it  might 
be  worked  out. 

For  California  we  would  suggest  such  receiving  stations  at  San 
Francisco,  Oakland,  San  Jose,  Sacramento,  Stockton,  Fresno,  Bakers- 
field,  Eureka,  Redding,  Los  Angeles,  San  Diego,  San  Bernardino, 
Santa  Barbara.  This  distribution  would  seem  to  meet  approximately 
the  distribution  of  population  and  geographical  divisions  of  the  state. 

The  two  clearing-houses  would  be  the  only  gateways  to  the  state 
prisons.  One  of  the  clearing  houses  would  be  in  or  near  San  Francisco, 
the  other  in  or  near  Los  Angeles.  Both  would  be  associated  with  the 
state  university  because  of  their  value  for  research  and  clinical  instruc- 
tion. The  organization  of  the  staff  would  not  differ  greatly  from  that 
of  the  receiving  stations,  except  that  more  capable  officers  should  be 
secured  and  larger  salaries  paid.  Also  use  could  be  made  of  university 
students,  and  the  specialists  might  give  instruction  in  the  university. 
The  identification  men  would  probably  not  be  needed  here.  But 
psychologists,  psychiatrists,  physicians,  laboratory  assistants,  social 
field  workers,  attorneys  would  all  have  a  place  in  the  clearing  house. 

The  primary  function  of  the  clearing  house  would  be  to  make  fur- 
ther diagnosis  of  those  prisoners  sent  to  it  from  the  receiving  stations. 
The  decision  would  be  rendered  by  the  director  in  consultation  with 


138  THE  PASSING  OF  THE  COUNTY  JAIL 

the  specialists  on  his  staff.  When  a  decision  is  reached,  the  offender 
might  possibly  be  released,  although  this  would  be  even  rarer  than 
in  the  receiving  stations;  he  might  be  put  on  probation,  being  turned 
over  to  one  of  the  district  probation  officers;  or  he  might  be  sent  to 
one  of  the  state  prisons,  the  one  believed  to  be  best  adapted  to  his 
needs. 

The  clearing  houses  would  also  serve  other  functions.  They 
would  arrange  the  transfer  of  prisoners  from  one  institution  to  another 
either  as  a  form  of  promotion  or  demotion  or  as  a  means  of  rectifying 
a  mistake.  They  would  also  arrange  the  transfer  from  institution  to 
parole  or  vice  versa,  or  from  probation  to  institution.  Some  of  these 
transfers  might  well  be  managed  without  the  prisoner  going  in 
person  through  the  clearing  house,  although  in  some  cases — possibly 
a  good  many — such  contact  and  opportunity  for  further  study  might 
prove  a  considerable  advantage. 

The  division  of  state  prisons  would  not  be  an  innovation  at  all,  for 
the  administration  of  the  state  prisons  in  California  is  already  in  the 
hands  of  the  Board  of  Prison  Directors.  Their  functions,  with  the 
exception  of  parole,  would  simply  be  transferred  to  this  division  of 
the  proposed  department.  But  there  might  well  be  some  important 
changes  in  the  prisons  themselves.  What  we  have  in  mind  here  is  a 
number  of  institutions,  smaller  than  a  good  many  penitentiaries, 
specialized  to  deal  with  different  problems.  In  each  institution 
would  be  teachers,  physicians,  guards  and  possibly  some  other  offi- 
cers. A  warden  would  be  in  charge,  and  over  all  these  institutions — 
including  some  for  feebleminded,  and  some  for  insane  prisoners — 
would  be  a  director  of  prisons.  The  number  and  character  of  the 
separate  institutions  would  change  in  response  to  changing  needs  and 
to  increasing  knowledge  of  the  whole  "criminal  group."  We  shall  not 
go  into  possible  details  here.  The  preceding  chapter  states  in  general 
the  sort  of  policies  that  we  should  expect  to  see  carried  out. 

California  already  has  a  state  bureau  of  identification.  Funda- 
mentally the  only  change  that  we  would  suggest  is  that  this  bureau 
be  made  a  part  of  the  proposed  department  of  correction.  All  records 
would  be  kept  in  the  central  office  at  Sacramento.  But  most  of  the 
original  work  would  be  done  by  identification  experts  assigned  to  the 
several  receiving  stations.  While  a  large  part  of  their  work  would  be 
done  in  their  offices,  they  would  be  subject  to  call  to  any  criminal 
court  in  the  district  served  by  the  receiving  station  to  which  they 


A  UNIFIED  CORRECTIONAL  SYSTEM  139 

might  be  attached.  They  would  be  subject  to  the  superintendent  of 
the  receiving  station,  but  they  would  also  be  responsible  to  the  direc- 
tor of  the  central  bureau  for  carrying  out  his  general  instructions  as 
to  methods  of  work  and  the  data  to  be  forwarded  to  him. 

The  division  of  probation  and  parole  would  be  in  one  phase  some- 
thing quite  new,  but  in  another  merely  the  carrying  over  of  what 
already  exists.  The  parole  officers  at  the  present  time  are  under  the 
Board  of  Prison  Directors  who  control  the  state  prisons.  But  the 
probation  officers  today  are  county  officials.  We  would  suggest  a 
director  of  the  division  to  appoint  district  officers,  who  in  turn  would 
appoint  local  officers  to  work  in  different  parts  of  the  district.  All 
would  be  state  officers  and  integral  parts  of  the  correctional  system. 
Then  uniform  methods  of  work  could  be  developed — although  there 
need  not  be  excessive  interference  with  individual  initiative — and 
responsibility  could  be  definitely  fixed. 

A  person  on  probation  or  parole  would  be  a  ward  of  the  depart- 
ment of  correction,  a  legal  status  corresponding  to  that  of  the  child 
committed  under  the  juvenile  court  law.  (The  child  is  described  in 
the  law  and  is  in  fact  a  "ward  of  the  court").  The  probationer  would 
be  in  the  immediate  charge  of  a  local  officer  who  would  give  his  ward 
personal  attention  and  supervision.  He  would  make  recommenda- 
tions to  the  district  chief  as  to  termination  of  the  probation  either  by 
release  or  by  return  to  a  receiving  station  or  clearing  house.  The 
decision  would  not  rest  in  the  hands  of  the  local  officer. 

As  to  termination  of  probation,  the  decision  might  be  made  in 
different  ways.  If  the  probationer  had  been  turned  over  to  the  officer 
by  the  court,  the  decision  might  be  rendered  by  the  district  chief 
probation  officer  upon  request  and  recommendation  either  of  the 
committing  judge  or  the  local  officer.  If  he  had  been  sent  from  a 
receiving  station,  the  decision  might  be  given  by  the  district  officer 
and  the  superintendent  of  the  receiving  station  acting  in  conjunction. 
In  case  of  disagreement,  appeal  might  be  made  to  the  director  of  the 
nearest  clearing  house.  If  the  probationer  had  come  from  a  clearing 
house,  the  decision  should  be  made  by  the  district  chief  and  the 
director  of  the  clearing  house  acting  together.  But  in  case  of  disagree- 
ment, the  opinion  of  the  director  of  the  clearing  house  would  be 
decisive,  except  that  the  district  probation  and  parole  officer  would 
have  the  right  of  appeal  to  a  committee  of  three — director  of  proba- 
tion and  parole,  director  of  the  other  clearing  house  and  director  of 


140  THE  PASSING  OF  THE  COUNTY  JAIL 

research.    Their  judgment  would  be  final,  except  for  possible  review 
by  the  board  itself. 

As  to  termination  of  parole,  the  decision  might  be  made  by  the 
director  of  the  clearing  house  through  which  the  prisoner  had  come, 
but  upon  objection  from  the  district  chief  probation  and  parole  offi- 
cer, a  conference  should  be  held  between  these  two  and  the  warden  of 
of  the  prison  of  which  the  man  had  last  been  an  inmate.  If  there  were 
still  lack  of  agreement,  the  matter  might  be  appealed  to  the  same 
committee  of  three  suggested  to  deal  with  matters  of  probation. 

All  such  decisions  would  be  subject  to  review  by  the  board  itself 
or  by  its  executive  officer.  All  final  releases  would  involve  a  restora- 
tion of  citizenship.  As  to  the  relation  of  this  system  to  the  governor's 
pardoning  power,  we  have  not  been  able  to  reach  any  conclusion. 

One  of  the  most  important  divisions  of  the  department  would  be 
devoted  to  research.  To  this  division  would  come  all  statistical  reports 
from  the  several  offices  and  institutions,  and  all  case  records  after 
the  discharge  of  prisoners.  Handling  this  body  of  data  would  itself 
be  an  enormous  task.  But  in  order  to  use  it  for  the  solution  of  scienti- 
fic and  practical  problems,  other  and  supplementary  information 
would  have  to  be  secured  from  time  to  time. 

The  division  might  publish  certain  more  or  less  routine  statistical 
reports.  But  this  rather  perfunctory  duty  would  fall  into  the  back- 
ground in  favor  of  research  work  upon  definite  problems  connected 
with  causes  of  delinquency,  administration  of  correctional  systems, 
etc. 

The  staff  of  the  division  would  include  a  statistician,  statistical 
clerks,  record  clerks,  field  workers,  and  perhaps  from  time  to  time 
outside  specialists.  Members  of  the  staff  might  do  teaching  in  the 
-late  university  and  students  might  be  utilized  as  research  assistants. 
Other  divisions  need  not  detain  us  long  at  this  point.  The  duties  of 
the  attorney,  chief  clerk  and  director  of  the  construction  are  more  less 
self-explanatory.  It  might,  however,  be  added  that  an  attorney 
would  probably  be  a  necessary  member  of  the  staff  of  each  receiving 
station  and  clearing  house.  As  such  he  would  sustain  certain  direct 
relations  to  the  attorney  for  the  department  as  well  as  to  the  superin- 
i  endent  of  the  receiving  station  or  clearing  house  to  which  he  might  be 
attached.  The  purchasing  agent  would  be  primarily  what  the  army 
people  call  a  liaison  officer.  It  would  be  his  task  to  straighten  out 
dilin  ulties  between  the  offices  and  institutions  of  the  department  of 


A  UNIFIED  CORRECTIONAL  SYSTEM  141 

correction  and  the  purchasing  department,  which  is  a  distinct  unit  oi 
the  California  state  government. 

It  remains  to  indicate  briefly  the  place  of  the  police  and  the  courts 
in  a  state  which  should  adopt  such  a  system  as  we  have  outlined.  The 
state  department  of  correction  might  or  might  not  have  direct  rela- 
tions with  the  police.  We  have  assumed  that,  for  the  present  at  least, 
the  police  would  remain  under  municipal  and  county  governments. 

The  question  may  be  raised:  why  put  people  who  are  merely 
technical  offenders  through  the  elaborate  processes  of  the  proposed 
department  of  correction?  The  answer  is  that  such  procedure  would 
not  always  be  necessary. 

We  have  already  provided  that  the  court  might  place  a  convicted 
offender  directly  on  probation.  Thus,  where  it  seemed  wise  to  impose 
a  fine  for  the  purpose  of  restitution,  supervision  of  the  restitution 
might  well  be  left  to  the  probation  officer,  especially  if  it  were  to  be 
through  partial  payments.  The  only  occasion  for  sending  the  con- 
victed man  then  to  a  receiving  station  would  be  failure  to  comply  with 
the  conditions  of  probation.  Even  then  a  lecture  from  the  judge 
might  accomplish  all  that  would  be  needed. 

There  is  another  problem  involved  in  the  violation  of  more  or  less 
technical  ordinances  such  as  riding  on  the  wide  walk,  parking  in  for- 
bidden places,  etc.  In  so  far  as  they  are  due  to  ignorance  or 
occasional  carelessness,  an  arrest  may  not  be  necessary  at  all.  In 
many  cases  a  reprimand  from  the  police  would  seem  sufficient.  In 
other  words,  it  would  be  possible  for  the  police  to  assume  such  an 
attitude  that  this  problem  would  become  relatively  insignificant.  If 
the  police  were  rewarded  for  preventing  offenses  and  for  dealing  with 
certain  offenders  otherwise  than  by  arrest,  the  number  of  persons  who 
really  need  probation  or  institutional  care  would  probably  show  a 
marked  decrease.  Another  way  in  which  the  police  could  be  trained 
to  render  great  service  would  be  through  early  recognition  of  mental 
defect  and  aberration.  Both  of  these  policies  are  already  in  operation 
in  the  city  of  Berkeley,8  where  chief  Vollmer  has  a  notable  record  of 
accomplishment  in  the  prevention  of  crime  through  educating  the 
police. 

8  Journal  of  Criminal  Law,  7:  877-898. 


142  THE  PASSING  OF  THE  COUNTY  JAIL 

The  function  of  the  court  would  be  limited  pretty  definitely  to  the 
determination  of  fact.  It  would  have  practically  nothing  to  do  with 
treatment.  If  a  person  had  done  some  forbidden  deed  and  thereby 
put  himself  out  of  harmony  with  his  fellow  citizens,  the  determination 
of  that  fact  would  be  the  task  of  the  court.  With  the  exception  of 
probation  in  certain  cases — e.g.,  damage  to  property  through  trespass 
where  restitution  might  appear  to  be  the  only  necessary  "treatment" 
— that  would  be  its  sole  task.  "Floaters,"  prison  sentences  and  even 
fines  would  be  abolished  in  their  present  form.  Fines  might  occasion- 
ally be  imposed  in  connection  with  probation.  Definite  prison  sen- 
tences would  give  way  to  the  flexible  system  of  institutional  care 
already  outlined.    "Floaters"  would  disappear  forever. 

After  finding  that  a  person  has  done  something  that  is  forbidden 
by  the  penal  code,  the  court  would  declare  him  a  ward  of  the  state 
department  of  correction.  In  the  vast  majority  of  cases  that  would 
complete  the  court's  task,  except  for  turning  over  the  prisoner  togeth- 
er with  the  record  of  his  case  to  the  appropriate  officer.  This  would 
mean  genuinely  indefinite  sentences.  Prisoners  could  be  kept  in 
custody  for  life,  if  necessary,  even  though  their  "crime"  might  be  no 
more  "heinous"  than  begging.  They  could,  on  the  other  hand,  be 
released  as  soon  as  they  might  prove  able  to  take  their  part  in  the 
normal  social  life  again,  even  though  their  crime  had  been  murder. 
Only  by  such  a  system  as  this  does  it  seem  possible  to  deal  with  the 
offender  as  a  man. 

The  accompanying  charts  indicate  graphically  the  organization 
of  the  proposed  department  of  correction  and  the  possible  stages  in 
dealing  with  an  offender. 

Answers  to  Possible  Objections 
We  have  now  presented  our  thesis,  which  is  fundamentally  an  argu- 
ment for  individualization  through  a  centralized  correctional  system. 
We  have  set  forth  in  outline  form  a  very  concrete  plan  which  should  at 
least  serve  as  a  starting  point  in  devising  something  better.  It 
remains  to  give  some  attention  to  objections  that  may  be  raised  to  our 
general  proposition  and  its  concrete  application.  Perhaps  this  can 
best  be  done  through  paying  our  respects  to  the  "limitations  upon 
individualization"  discussed  in  Parmelee's  "Criminology,"  to  which 
reference  has  already  been  made.9 

•Parmclce,  Maurice  P.:   "Criminology."     New  York.     1«>1S.     p.  394  ff. 


C . 

n 

o 
d 

H 

CO 

X 

■ > 

* 

POLICE  AND 
SHERIFFS 

^. 

r 

/ 

\ 

r 

DETENTION 
"JAILS 

y 

^2 
x~ 

/ 

*1 

*s 

* 

i 

' 

0 

o 

PROBATION 

AND 

PAROLE 

| 

2 

<s 

/ 

N 

> 

0  w 

C/5  ~ 
C/5  X 

o 

/ 

■s 

• 

J 

\ 

S3 

«J 

*s 

0 

> 

H 

ARREST 


y       DETENTION 
IN  JAIL 


TRIAL 


COMMITMENT 
TO  STATE  DEPT. 


RELEASE 


TO 
ANOTHER 

I' HI  SON- 


RELEASE     TRANSFER* 


I* 

eso 
asw 

""OS 


-a-S 

fa  ° 


- 


go 


a: 

fa 

5 


o 


-J 


55 

r> 

w 
OS 
3 

08 

W 

o 

o 

os        o 

fa 

o 

fa 

O 

6-, 

O 

rrt 

« 

-     n 

> 

> 

S 

H 

P 

H 

C 

■< 

o 

a 

5 

w 

a. 

55 

» 

oz3 

CE-* 

ososE 


95 

OS 

5  os  3 

o 
z 


5° 


3 

uo 

*S 

/-i 

HOh 

£t3 

« 

ao   c 

o 

3  u 

►J 

- 

55 

&..    O 

as    ■< 


b2 

QO 


I 

o 


-2 


a 
s 

—a 


-<a  2, 


fa2 


2z 

wes 

H 


a 


w 

55 

_0S 

o 

5 


3  »  .S 


fa 

oo 


fa 
°co 

OS  55 
OO 


&J.I  8-1  a  "2 


2:  BJ?  a  s  o 


OSS  55 

o>o 

cs«£ 
ng00 

3 


aBBfl 

>  \3 -^ -c  73  .*»  rr  *-  u-m 


H' 


co  >, 


I 


146  THE  PASSING  OF  THE  COUNTY  JAIL 

(1)  Parmelee  insists  that  for  financial  reasons  alone  individualiza- 
tion is  impracticable  except  to  a  very  limited  degree.  In  the  previous 
chapter  we  showed  that  this  might  be  true  of  a  system  which  endea- 
vored to  provide  a  distinct  type  of  treatment  for  each  separate 
offender.  But  we  also  showed  that  not  only  was  such  individualiza- 
tion unnecessary;  we  also  showed  it  to  be  undesirable,  if  not,  indeed, 
impossible,  because  based  on  a  misleading  concept — namely,  the 
assumption  of  the  individual  as  an  isolated  unit.  The  sort  of  indivi- 
dulization  that  we  propose  would  not  necessarily  be  any  more  expen- 
sive than  existing  penal  systems.  Especially  might  the  anticipated 
expense  be  cut  down  by  unification,  by  reducing  recidivism,  and  by 
preventive  work.  Moreover,  what  if  the  immediate  expense  should 
be  greater?  It  would  be  more  than  justified,  if  it  promised  adequate 
returns  in  the  future.  But  the  more  we  study  it,  the  more  we  are 
convinced  that  the  socialized  individualization  of  an  industrial 
institution  correlated  with  intelligent  probation  and  parole  work 
would  at  least  prove  no  more  expensive  than  present-day  care  of 
offenders.  Admittedly,  our  answer  to  Parmelee  is  little  more  than  the 
expression  of  opinion.  But  so  is  Parmelee's  "objection"  an  expression 
of  opinion,  and  an  opinion  based  on  a  misconception  of  the  individual. 

(2)  Parmelee's  second  "limitation"  indicates  very  clearly  that  his 
notion  of  individualization  is  not  at  all  the  same  as  ours. 

Such  a  high  degree  of  individualization  would,  as  a  rule,  have  no  utility.  It 
is,  therefore,  necessary  to  establish  a  more  or  less  detailed  classification  based  upon 
the  three  points  of  view  designated  above  (origin  of  the  criminality,  type  of  the 
criminality,  intensity  of  the  criminality).  The  individualizing  would  then  consist 
in  determining  the  class  of  each  criminal.  Such  a  classification  should  be  developed 
out  of  the  experience  of  the  courts  and  of  the  penal  administration,  and  experience 
tested  and  controlled  by  statistics  of  recidivism  and  of  the  extent  of  crime. 

Just  what  does  his  statement  assume  individualization  to  be? 
Would  he  have  criminals  sent  from  the  clearing  house  to  the  institu- 
tion tagged  "dementia  praecox,"  "accidental  murderer,"  "incorrigi- 
ble," etc.,  to  be  put  through  corresponding  mechanical  processes? 
Whatever  his  notion  may  be,  it  has  little  in  common  with  what  we 
have  outlined.  Under  our  plan,  prisoners  would  be  grouped  in 
accordance  with  the  probability  of  their  responding  successfully  (not 
necessarily  identically)  to  the  same  general  social  and  physical 
environment.  They  would  be  sent  to  take  their  place  as  members  of 
groups  and  to  live  under  conditions  which  afford  the  largest  probabil- 


A  UNIFIED  CORRECTIONAL  SYSTEM  147 

ity  of  (a)  immediate  adaptation,  and  (b)  development  of  capacity  for 
conduct  in  more  complex  and  difficull  situations.  They  would  not  be 
put  into  a  given  institution  or  ward  to  be  manipulated  in  the  same 
manner  as  all  others  in  that  place.  They  would  be  put  there  to  find  a 
place  for  themselves  in  a  group  life  and  a  physical  environment 
artificially  simplified  and  in  a  high  degree  controlled  by  others,  with 
the  hope  that  solving  the  problems  which  they  must  face  here,  they 
will  become  able  to  solve  more  difficult  problems,  until  perhaps  they 
will  no  longer  require  the  careful  tutelage  of  a  correctional  system. 
With  such  a  point  of  view  clearly  in  mind,  it  is  hard  to  believe  that 
"such  a  high  degree  of  individualization  would,  as  a  rule,  have  no 
utility." 

(3)  Parmelee's  third  proposition  is  that  individualization  is 
dangerous  to  personal  rights. 

Furthermore,  it  would  be  dangerous  to  individual  rights  and  personal  liberty  if 
unlimited  powers  of  individualization  were  put  into  the  hands  of  the  courts  and 
penal  administration.  However  efficient  these  may  become,  errors  will  always  be 
possible.  Ordinarily  these  errors  will  be  unintentional.  In  some  cases  political 
reasons  may  lead  judicial  and  administrative  officials  to  incarcerate  indefinitely 
persons  who  are  objectionable  to  them.  Consequently  maximum  limits  should 
always  be  placed  upon  the  powers  of  these  officials,  and  rights  of  appeal  should 
always  be  maintained.  However  desirable  individualization  of  punishment  may  be 
for  penological  reasons,  it  would  not  be  worth  while  to  risk  endangering  fundamental 
democratic  principles  for  this  reason.  Excessive  enthusiasm  for  the  principle  of 
individualization  on  the  part  of  reformers  is  likely  to  give  rise  to  this  danger,  especially 
when  they  are  ignorant  of  the  history  of  human  liberty  and  personal  rights. 

Postponing  for  just  a  moment  the  "evolution  of  human  liberty  and 
personal  rights,"  let  us  face  the  problem  that  lies  immediately  before 
us.  Our  belief  is  that  the  individual  will  be  in  no  more  danger  of 
arbitrary  handling  under  the  proposed  scheme  than  at  present.  In 
our  study  of  the  California  county  jails  we  found  that  in  some  com- 
munities the  peace  officers  were  inclined  to  arrest  or  "float"  every 
man  who  lacked  a  receipt  for  room  rent  or  a  meal  ticket,  while  in 
others  they  ignored,  so  far  as  possible,  a  large  number  of  men  who  were 
actually  violating  laws  against  begging,  disturbing  the  peace,  drunk- 
enness, etc.  Of  those  who  were  arrested,  we  found  some  courts 
indiscriminately  convicting  nearly  everyone,  while  other  courts 
dismissed  a  major  portion  of  the  cases.  On  those  convicted  of  any 
given  offense,  some  courts  uniformly  pronounced  long  jail  sentences, 
while   others  just   as   regularly  gave   short   sentences   or   fines.      If 


148  THE  PASSING  OF  THE  COUNTY  JAIL 

by  danger  to  "personal  rights"  Parmelee  means  arbitrary  treatment 
based  on  personal  inclinations  of  judges,  peace  officers  and  prison 
officials — which  is  the  only  tangible  meaning  we  are  able  to  derive 
from  his  statement — then  surely  those  "rights"  are  in  great  danger 
under  our  present  system. 

Parmelee's  argument  is  based  on  an  assumption  of  something 
that  does  not  exist.  He  assumes  that  justice  is  always  done  under  the 
present  system,  that  personal  feelings  and  political  influences  are 
excluded  from  the  courts.  If  that  be  true,  how  can  he  account  for  the 
Mooney  case  in  San  Francisco,10  the  trial  of  the  I.W.W.11  at  Sacra- 
mento, or  a  case  like  the  following: 

An  instance  has  recently  come  to  light  in  New  York  City  in  which  one  John  Gill 
has  been  in  jail  since  last  June  for  refusing  to  answer  a  question  before  the  grand 
jury.  Mr.  Gill  has  recently  demanded  of  the  judge  to  know  why  he,  a  poor  laboring 
man,  should  be  in  jail  for  refusing  to  answer,  when  Senator-elect  Newberry  of 
Michigan,  who  committed  the  identical  offense,  was  released  in  the  custody  of  his 
counsel. n 

Now  what  would  be  the  difference  under  the  plan  we  propose? 
The  decision  as  to  what  shall  be  done  with  a  man  after  conviction,  at 
least,  will  be  in  the  hands  of  a  non-political  group  of  scientifically 
trained  people.  The  matters  of  arrest  and  conviction  would  not  be 
directly  affected  at  present.  But  wrongs  done  a  man  by  conviction 
are  more  apt  to  be  discovered  and  righted  through  his  treatment  by  a 
clearing  house  than  through  executive  clemency  or  special  considera- 
tion in  a  present-day  prison.  Moreover,  the  "personal  rights"  of  the 
rest  of  us — rights  to  protection  against  theft,  arson,  murder,  annoy- 
ance by  drunkards  and  beggars — are  much  more  apt  to  be  intelligently 
guarded  under  the  new  system  than  the  old.  The  "right  of  appeal" 
need  not  be  abolished,  although  it  would  have  to  be  changed.  Admit- 
tedly "errors  will  always  be  possible,"  but  we  cannot  bring  ourselves 
to  believe  or  fear  that  the  suggested  change  will  "risk  endangering 
fundamental  democratic  principles." 

10  Survey,  38:  124,  305,  355,  460.     39:  28,  295,  349,  497,  712.     40:  512. 

New  Republic,  14:  203. 

Sunset,  38:  28. 

International  Socialist  Review,  17:  013,  675. 

"  Nation,  Jan.  25,  1919. 

"Public,  22:  52.     (Jan.  18,  1919.) 


A  UNIFIED  CORRECTION  \L  SYSTEM  149 

Returning  to  the  "evolution  of  human  liberty  and  personal 
rights,"  we  recall  that  they  had  their  origin  in  struggles  against 
monarchical  and  ecclesiastical  tyranny.  They  assumed  doctrines 
such  as  those  of  Hobbes,  Locke  or  Rousseau  concerning  the  individual 
as  a  separate  and  distinct  ent  ity.  They  were  set  forth  in  the  American 
Declaration  of  Independence  and  guaranteed  in  the  Federal  and  stale 
constitutions.  But  what  has  happened  to  them?  The  social  order 
which  created  and  presented  these  rights  has  taken  many  of  them 
away.  Within  the  past  two  years  we  have  established  sumptuary 
laws,  compulsory  military  service,  censorship  of  the  press,  govern- 
mental operation  of  railroads,  telephone  and  telegraph,  fixing  of 
prices  and  national  prohibition.  We  have  enforced  an  espionage 
act  which  has  abolished  the  free  press  and  free  speech.  If  Parmelee's 
argument  against  individualization  is  sound,  then,  indeed,  all  the 
activities  of  the  United  States  for  the  last  two  years  "risk  endangering 
fundamental  democratic  principles." 

Professor  Pound  has  pointed  out  a  legal  precedent  for  individuali- 
zation in  the  courts  of  equity.13 

What  we  have  to  achieve,  then,  in  modern  criminal  law  is  a  system  of  individualiza- 
tion, and  that  this  is  possible  we  have  the  warrant  of  the  experience  of  courts  of 
equity.  In  equity  we  have  a  system  of  legal  individualization.  Ever}-  rule  has  a 
margin,  more  or  less  wide,  which  admits  of  discretion  in  its  application  to  individual 
causes.  As  Lord  Eldon  puts  it,  the  doctrines  of  equity  "ought  to  be  as  well  settled 
and  made  as  uniform  almost  as  those  of  the  common  law,  laying  down  fixed  principles 
but  taking  care  that  they  are  to  be  applied  according  to  the  circumstances  of  each 
case."  In  equity,  too,  we  have  a  system  of  judicial  individualization.  There  is  not, 
as  at  law,  a  stereotyped  form  of  judgment  which  must  needs  be  rendered  in  every 
case;  but  the  court  has  wide  powers  of  adapting  the  decree  to  the  concrete  cause  and 
of  doing  what  will  most  subserve  the  ends  of  justice  therein.  For  the  individualiza- 
tion in  equity  in  our  system  is  in  its  administration  rather  than  in  its  substance, 
except  as  its  substance  allows  this.  That  rights  of  property,  which  are  constantly 
involved  in  our  equity  litigation,  have  not  suffered  in  any  wise  under  such  a  regime, 
argues  that  rights  of  personal  liberty,  of  which  we  are  at  least  no  less  tender,  do  not 
require  hard  and  fast  formulas  administered  mechanically  in  order  to  receive  full 
protection.  We  must  not  overlook  the  fact  that  today  publicity  is  the  most  effective 
check  and  balance  upon  the  magistrate.  There  is  much  less  need  of  the  elaborate 
tying  down  to  which  our  fathers  subjected  him. 

(4)  Parmelee's  next  point  is  that  there  is  danger  of  discrediting 
criminal  justice  in  the  eyes  of  the  public. 

13  Saleilles,  Raymond:  "Individualization  of  Punishment."  Introduction  by 
Roscoc  Pound,     pp.  xvii-xviii. 


150  THE  PASSING  OF  THE  COUNTY  JAIL 

There  is  also  a  serious  objection  to  individualization  which  indicates  a  further 
limitation  upon  the  application  of  this  principle.  To  many  persons  it  appears  as  if 
individualization  causes  great  injustice,  because  it  results  in  an  inequality  of  punish- 
ment for  equal  crimes.  Consequently,  there  is  danger  that  criminal  justice  will  be 
discredited  in  the  eyes  of  the  public,  and  measures  should  be  taken  to  avert  this 
danger. 

This  "limitation"  rests  upon  a  number  of  erroneous  assumptions 
which  need  to  be  removed.  First  of  all,  it  assumes  that  there  is  a 
common  measure  of  crimes  and  another  measure  for  punishment,  so 
that  we  can  really  have  "equality  of  punishment  for  equal  crimes." 
What  are  those  measures  with  which  we  can  perform  this  magical 
feat  of  measuring  and  balancing  crimes  and  punishments?  But,  sup- 
pose for  a  moment  that  we  have  such  tools  at  our  disposal,  clearly  we 
must  have  a  new  set  for  each  state.  In  fact,  we  will  have  to  have  a 
different  set  for  each  community,  each  court,  and  each  judge.  There 
actually  are  so  many  different  ways  of  dealing  with  people  who  do 
what  superficially  is  the  same  thing  that  it  would  be  hard  to  show  that 
we  are  now  free  from  this  dreaded  "inequality  of  punishment  for 
equal  crimes." 

Secondly,  it  is  assumed  that  the  public  has  confidence  in  "criminal 
justice"  as  now  administered.  The  popular  appeal  of  such  books  as 
Miss  Field's  "Story  of  Canada  Blackie,"  Lowrie's  "My  Life  Out  of 
Prison,"  Osborne's  "Within  Prison  Walls,"  and  others  indicates  that 
there  is  not  that  naive  confidence  in  our  penal  system  which  would  be 
shattered  by  the  proposed  changes.  Thousands  of  people  read  in  the 
Chicago  Tribune  of  April  12,  1919,  a  long  account  of  a  man  charged 
with  murder,  who  was  discharged  because  the  police  had  forced  a 
confession  from  him.  Not  only  the  fact  that  such  things  can  happen 
under  our  present  system,  but  the  additional  fact  that  the  people 
know  they  happen,  and  that  therefore  they  make  good  newspaper 
stuff  should  suffice  to  disillusion  Parmelee  on  this  point. 

However,  it  is  a  fact  that  the  man  on  the  street  would  feel  some- 
thing lacking  in  the  proposed  scheme.  It  is  the  same  sort  of  thing 
that  the  evangelist  misses  in  the  liturgical  churches,  that  the  stock- 
gambler  misses  in  "scientific  management,"  that  the  cowpuncher 
misses  in  tilling  the  soil,  that  Lady  Bountiful  misses  in  social  diagno- 
sis, that  the  fireman  misses  in  concrete  buildings.  Excitement  is 
lacking.  The  excitemenl  of  the  revival  meeting,  of  the  rodeo,  of  the 
"pit,"  of  the  man-hunt  and  of  the  hanging— this  has  no  place  in  the 
new  order. 


A  UNIFIED  CORRECTIONAL  SYSTEM  151 

Our  program  implies  the  definite  abandonment  of  punitive  justice 
both  in  theory  and  practi>e.  For  the  negative  definition  of  right  in 
terms  of  prosecution  and  punishment  it  means  the  substitution  of  a 
positive  definition  in  terms  of  prevention  and  reformation.  Instead  of 
the  ephemeral  moral  enthusiasm  centered  on  the  destruction  of 
criminals,  it  suggests  a  consistent  effort  to  offset  wayward  tendencies 
and  to  reinstate  delinquents  in  the  social  order.  It  calls  for  a  restate- 
ment of  moral  values  including  the  worth  of  the  individual  as  well  as 
the  importance  of  group  solidarity.  It  demands  a  new  conception  of 
group  solidarity  with  reference  to  purpose  or  function,  in  place  of  the 
old  conception  which  had  reference  merely  to  opposition  to  other 
groups.14 

(5)  Criminals  would  feel  themselves  unjustly  treated!  This  is 
Parmelee's  fifth  objection  to  individualization. 

It  is  probable  that  criminals  sometimes  feel  that  they  are  being  treated  unjustly 
when  others  who  have  been  guilty  of  the  same  crime  receive  a  lighter  penalty.  This 
can  be  obviated  in  part  by  the  merit  system  in  the  penal  institutions.  A  criminal 
should  be  made  to  feel  that  the  severity  and  duration  of  his  punishment  depends 
largely  upon  himself,  and  that  others  are  released  with  less  punishment  because  they 
have  earned  more  lenient  treatment.  But  it  might  also  be  desirable  if,  on  the  occasion 
of  every  sentence,  the  judge  would  state  publicly  the  reasons  for  the  sentence,  thus 
indicating  its  justice  both  to  the  criminals  and  to  the  non-criminal  public.  In  this 
fashion  both  the  criminals  and  the  public  at  large  might,  in  the  course  of  time,  be 
educated  up  to  the  point  of  appreciating  the  justice  of  individualizing  punishment. 

Parmelee's  own  statement  indicates  that  he  does  not  take  this 
"limitation"  very  seriously.  He  also  intimates  that  such  sense  of 
injustice  exists  at  present.  Consequently  we  might  ignore  this  argu- 
ment. But  as  a  matter  of  fact,  we  have  never  walked  into  a  jail  or 
penitentiary,  or  for  that  matter  an  almshouse,  home  for  feebleminded 
or  hospital  for  insane,  without  finding  someone  to  complain  that  he 
was  being  unjustly  detained.  Such  beliefs,  real  or  pretended,  will 
perhaps  always  be  found,  but  the  correctional  system  may  be  mea- 
sured in  part  by  the  degree  to  which  such  expressions  are  not  manifest. 
We  do  not  mean  that  they  should  be  repressed,  but  that  the  incentives 
to  such  remarks  must  be  removed  before  real  reformation  can  occur. 
However,  the  removal  of  the  incentives  to  complain  will  not  be 
brought  about  by  establishing  "fixed  penalties."     The  prisoner  who  is 

14  Mead,  George  H.:  "The  Psychology  of  Punitive  Justice."  American  Journal 
of  Psychology,  23:  577-602  i  March,  1918). 


152  THE  PASSING  OF  THE  COUNTY  JAIL 

trying  to  learn  a  trade,  to  acquire  an  elementary  education,  to  make  a 
piece  of  furniture,  to  get  on  well  with  his  fellow  prisoners  and  officers, 
will  be  too  busy  to  worry  much  about  the  sort  of  injustice  feared  by 
Parmelee. 

(6)  Finally,  our  critic  falls  back  upon  "the  public's  desire  to  pun- 
ish according  to  a  graduated  scale  of  severity." 

There  undoubtedly  exists  in  the  public  consciousness  a  desire  to  punish  crimes 
according  to  a  graduated  scale  of  severity.  It  has  been  suggested  above  that  the 
public  may  be  educated  up  to  the  point  of  accepting  individualization  without 
demanding  punishment  for  the  crime.  However,  it  is  doubtful  if  the  public  can  ever 
be  induced  to  accept  thorough-going  individualization.  Furthermore,  the  public 
demand  for  a  graduation  of  penalties  according  to  the  gravity  of  the  crimes  has  some 
social  justification  which  must  be  recognized. 

I  have  shown  in  the  preceding  chapter  that  the  original  sources  of  punishment 
are  the  powerful  emotions  of  fear  and  of  anger.  These  emotions  are  prone  to  lead 
the  individual  and  society  to  acts  of  excess  in  repressing  the  objects  toward  which 
these  emotions  are  directed,  and  therefore  are  in  need  of  regulation  and  restraint. 
The  principle  of  individualization  should  furnish  one  of  the  methods  of  regulating 
the  primitive  manifestations  of  these  emotions.  But  it  will  always  be  necessary  to 
permit  public  vengeance,  as  manifested  through  the  penal  law,  to  stigmatize  the 
graver  crimes  effectively  by  attaching  heavier  penalties  to  them.  Thus  will  these 
crimes  be  made  to  appear  more  odious  even  to  those  who  have  no  thought  of  com- 
mitting them,  and  the  standard  of  public  morality  can  thereby  be  raised.  In  this 
fashion  the  public  can  display  its  displeasure  against  dangerous  anti-social  conduct 
as  personified  by  the  criminals  who  commit  these  acts. 

It  is  evident,  therefore,  that  the  principle  of  individualization  must  be  adjusted 
to  the  need  for  indicating  the  relative  gravity  of  crimes. 

We  have  shown  earlier  that  the  system  of  fixed  penalties,  graded 
according  to  the  assumed  gravity  of  the  offense  arose  as  a  reaction 
against  the  arbitrary  procedure  of  royal  and  ecclesiastical  courts  in 
Europe.  It  was  believed  that  this  system  would  correct  the  ancient 
evils,  and  its  relative  success  has  caused  the  sanctity  of  tradition  to 
gather  around  it.  But  that  is  no  reason  for  believing  that  this  will 
persist  forever.  The  very  fact  that  the  public,  which  once  accepted 
the  arbitrariness  of  feudal,  royal  or  ecclesiastical  courts  as  a  matter 
of  fact  and  looked  upon  these  hoary  institutions  with  awe,  came  to 
oppose  them  and  accepted  new  dogmas  and  traditions  which  per- 
meate the  present  system — this  fact  is  sufficient  reason  for  believing 
that  this  too  will  be  cast  aside  when  its  shortcomings  are  fully  appre- 
ciated and  faith  has  been  attached  to  something  new.  Public  opinion 
may  change  slowly,  but  that  it  does  change  is  a  fact  so  obvious  that 


A  UNIFIED  CORRECTIONAL  SYSTEM  153 

we  hardly  see  how  Parmelee's  skepticism  can  be  regarded  as  an 
argument. 

He  has  merely  set  for  us  one  part  of  our  problem,  viz.,  how  can  we 
direct  public  attention  to  faults  of  the  present  system  and  to  possible 
remedies?  Or,  to  state  it  differently,  there  is  more  or  less  vague 
popular  dissatisfaction  with  criminal  procedure.  We  who  are  students 
of  social  phenomena  have  tried  to  make  scientific  statements  of  the 
problem.  We  have  hit  upon  an  hypothesis.  If  the  public  finds  that 
our  analysis  corresponds  with  general  experience,  it  may  be  sufficient- 
ly interested  in  our  hypothesis  to  test  it  through  legislation.  If,  in  the 
trial,  the  proposal  is  found  to  "work,"  it  will  probably  be  retained  as  a 
part  of  the  correctional  system,  and — who  can  tell — it  may  in  turn 
become  the  bearer  of  venerable  and  hoary  traditions  which  will 
impede  further  progress. 

In  advocating  this  radical  change  in  our  correctional  systems  it  is 
fully  recognized  that  legislatures  will  not  pass  the  necessary  laws  all  at 
once,  and  that  even  if  they  would,  there  would  still  be  the  difficulty 
that  public  opinion  is  so  far  from  understanding  the  principle  of 
individualization  that  it  would  not  support  the  new  order.  It  is,  after 
all,  a  good  thing  that  the  moulding  of  public  opinion  and  the  reorgani- 
zation of  our  institutions  must  go  hand  in  hand. 

Our  proposal  of  individualization  through  a  unified  correctional 
system  is  not  at  all  imagined  to  be  a  panacea.  With  it  must  go  impor- 
tant developments  along  other  lines,  such  as:  (a)  preventive  legisla- 
tion, e.g.,  measures  designed  to  minimize  unemployment,  to  protect 
children,  to  segregate  the  feebleminded,  (b)  periodic  revision  of  the 
penal  codes  so  as  to  maintain  relative  uniformity  between  the  formal 
law  and  the  mores,  eliminating  "freak  legislation"  and  "dead  letters," 
(c)  police  trained  and  rewarded  for  avoiding  unnecessary  arrests,  as 
well  as  better  equipped  to  catch  really  dangerous  offenders,  (d)  sim- 
plification of  court  procedure,  (e)  making  the  care  of  delinquents  a 
profession  or  a  group  of  professions  with  special  training  and  assur- 
ance of  a  career. 

Conclusion 

It  must  be  clear  that  we  have  placed  the  treatment  of  delinquents 
on  a  totally  different  basis  from  that  of  punitive  justice.  However, 
we  have  not  tried  to  set  up  one  absolute  standard  or  ideal  in  place  of 
another.    In  urging  a  new  program  we  have  simply  proposed  it  as  an 


154  THE  PASSING  OF  THE  COUNTY  JAIL 

hypothesis,  a  suggested  solution  of  a  group  of  problems  which  have  a 
very  real  existence. 

Probably  there  is  no  one  who  would  not  be  glad  if  crime  could  be 
prevented.  Hence  we  may  fairly  state  the  problem:  How  can  we 
prevent  crime?  How  can  we  keep  delinquents  from  repeating  their 
offenses,  and  how  can  we  prevent  the  making  of  future  offenders? 
Probably  there  is  no  one  who  would  not  be  glad  if  offenders  could  be 
made  into  good  citizens.  Hence  we  may  state  the  second  problem: 
How  can  we  enable  those  who  have  broken  our  laws  to  live  peaceably 
with  the  rest  of  us?  How  can  we  build  up  in  delinquents  that  social- 
self-control  which  is  the  essence  of  good  citizenship? 

With  these  problems  before  us  we  have  assembled  evidence  bear- 
ing on  a  number  of  hypotheses.  We  have  not  speculated  in  our 
closet  about  the  nature  of  crime  and  criminals.  We  have  gone  forth  to 
draw  as  widely  as  we  could  upon  human  experience.  We  have  col- 
lected data  for  the  purpose  of  testing  various  proposals.  We  have 
concluded  with  one  which,  in  the  present  state  of  our  knowledge, 
seems  most  likely  to  advance  the  solution  of  our  problems. 

The  hypothesis  which  we  have  offered  will  doubtless  strike  many 
people  as  lacking  in  something.  It  does  lack  something — something 
which  we  can  now  very  well  do  without.  Let  us  illustrate  by  an 
analogy. 

Many  social  groups — perhaps  all — have  come  into  existence 
through  conflict.  It  was  opposition  to  a  common  foe  that  brought 
their  members  together.  It  was  in  terms  of  hostility  to  some  enemy 
that  the  group  took  form  and  was  defined  in  the  minds  of  its  members. 
Thus  the  Christian  church  arose  in  opposition  to  the  many  religions  of 
the  Roman  Empire.  The  Protestant  movement  was  a  conflict  with 
the  Church  of  Rome.  The  various  protestant  sects  have  organized 
and  perpetuated  themselves  by  contrast  and  opposition,  more  or  less 
modified,  to  other  sects.  Now  so  long  as  the  sense  of  hostility  is  alive, 
there  is  enthusiasm  for  the  sect.  But  so  long  as  this  is  true,  the 
organization  emphasizes  its  negative  aspect.  Its  positive  function 
is  thrust  into  the  background.  Its  successful  competition  with  other 
groups  stands  out  vividly,  while  there  is  but  faint  recognition  of  the 
constructive  work,  which  may  be  undertaken  through  the  co-operative 
effort  of  its  members. 

So  it  is  in  the  nation.  The  United  States  was  formed  in  a  conflict 
with   Great   Britain.     The   war  against    a  common  enemy  brought 


A  UNIFIED  CORRECTIONAL  SYSTEM  155 

together  the  thirteen  separate  and  none  too  friendly  colonies.  All 
through  its  history  the  nation  has  typified  to  most  of  its  citizens 
organized  defense  against  foreign  aggression.  We  have  defined  it 
negatively  in  terms  of  its  power  to  prevent  injury  from  without.  We 
have  thought  relatively  little  of  its  power  to  do  work  within.  Hostility 
rather  than  function  has  permeated  our  patriotism.  But  after  the 
shadow  of  this  last  war  has  passed,  it  seems  likely  that  blatant  chau- 
vinism will  give  way  more  and  more  to  constructive  patriotism.  The 
Pharisee  who  finds  satisfaction  in  cheering  the  flag  and  military 
parades,  but  who  sells  milk  at  enormous  profits  to  the  poor,  will  miss 
something  in  the  new  situation.  The  man  who  is  eager  to  die  for  his 
country,  but  who  has  not  learned  to  live  for  it,  will  not  feel  at  home  in 
the  new  order  of  things. 

So  it  is  with  the  institution  of  private  property.  Our  property  is 
apt  to  be  that  from  which  we  exclude  other  people  rather  more  than 
it  is  that  with  which  we  accomplish  results.  It  is  because  of  this  nega- 
tive conception  of  property  that  we  react  with  such  spirit  to  the  cry 
of  "stop  thief."  We  resent  any  infringement  upon  the  "majesty  of 
the  law"  because  it  protects  us  in  our  exclusive  possession  of  some- 
thing. But  if  it  be  possible  for  the  positive  aspect  of  property  to  over- 
shadow the  negative,  we  will  deal  with  it  as  a  means  to  an  end  rather 
than  an  end  in  itself.  We  will  be  less  interested  in  "no  trespassing" 
and  more  concerned  with  "scientific  management."  Some  Socialists 
and  some  Christians  have  already  spoken  of  property  as  held  in  trust 
for  the  service  of  mankind.  But  this  attitude  involves  little  of  the 
thrill  that  goes  with  stock  gambling  and  cutthroat  competition. 

Now  to  return  from  our  analogies  to  the  treatment  of  offenders — 
do  we  not  have  here  about  the  same  contrasts?  Does  not  respectable 
society  define  itself  in  terms  of  hostility  to  the  delinquent  rather  than 
in  terms  of  social  service?  Does  not  patriotism  consist  more  in 
maligning  things  foreign  than  in  helping  our  own  fallen  brothers?  Is 
not  property  a  source  of  pride  and  power  more  than  a  means  of  enrich- 
ing human  life?  The  element  of  hostility  in  our  conventional  atti- 
tudes is  much  more  exciting,  far  more  exhilirating  than  the  element  of 
constructive  purpose.  Social  diagnosis  and  the  quiet,  unobtrusive 
processes  of  reformation  do  not  thrill  us  nearly  so  much  as  the  man- 
hunt and  the  murder  trial.  But  is  it  not  conceivable  that  we  may 
learn  to  get  along  without  these  "emotional  sprees,"  and  devote 
ourselves  earnestly  to  the  serious  business  of  life?    In  giving  up  retri- 


156  THE  PASSING  OF  THE  COUNTY  JAIL 

butive  justice,  as  in  giving  up  chauvinism,  revival  meetings  and 
predatory  wealth,  we  will  miss  something.  For  a  time  we  may  feel 
lost  without  the  thrill  that  comes  from  the  hanging,  the  regimental 
review,  the  heresy-hunt,  the  stock  exchange.  But  in  this  transition 
from  the  negative  to  the  positive  values  of  life  may  we  not  find  our 
way  to  something  finer  and  richer? 


[NDEX 


Ages  of  misdemeanants,  45,  88 
Alabama,  jails  of,  16 
American  Prison  Ass'n,  39 
Arrests,  1,  3 

Beggars,  31,  65 

Belgium,  32 

Birthplace,  46,  89 

Bowers,  Paul  E.,  130 

Brockway,  Zebulon,  25 

California  State  Board  of  Charities  and 

Corrections,  v,  133 
Chicago  House  of  Correction,  25 
Classification  of  crimes,  71  ff. 
Clearing-House,  128,  137 
Collins,  Jas.  A.,  22 
Connecticut,  17 
Contract  Labor,  17 
Convictions  for  misdemeanors,  4 
Correction,  House  of,  24 
County  jail  system,  1  ff. 
Court  procedure,  21 

Derrick,  Calvin,  120 

Deserters  of  families,  37,  68 

Detention  awaiting  trial,  21 

Detroit  House  of  Correction,  25 

Discipline  in  jails,  10,  117 

Disease,  56 

District  of  Columbia  Workhouse,  27 

Education,  61 
Expert  testimony,  130 

Family  deserters,  37,  68 
Farm  colony,  local,  26  ff. 
Farm  colony,  state,  28  ff. 
Fee  system,  13 
Felons,  71  ff. 
Fines,  18,  22 

Fixed  penalty  system,  103 
"Floater"  custom,  7 


Glueck,  Bernard,  85,  130 
Great  Britain,  jails  of,  20 

Identification  of  prisoners,  138 

Illinois,  jails  of,  15 

Indiana  State  Farm,  30 

Indianapolis  City  Court,  22 

Individualization,  102  ff.,  146  ff. 

Inebriates,  34 

Iowa  State  Hospital  for  Inebriates,  35 

Jail,  system,  1  ff. 

Jails,  physical  condition,  8 

"Kangaroo  Court,"  11 

Los  Angeles  Co.,  Cal.,  23 

Marital  status,  49,  90 
Massachussets  State  Farm,  29,  35 
Mental  condition,  58,  92 
Merxplas-Wortel,  Belgium,  ^ 
Miner,  Maude  E.,  37,  86 
Misdemeanants,  41  ff. 
Missouri,  11 

National    Conference    of    Charities    and 

Corrections,  38 
New  Haven  County  Jail,  17 
New  York  City  Hospital  and  Industrial 

Colony,  36 
New  York  State  clearing-house  plan,  128 
New  York  State  Farm  for  Women.    ;1 

Oates,  W.  H.,  16 
Occupations,  50,  90 

Offenses,  43,  75,  83 
Orange  County  Jail.  2.i 
Outdoor  work,  23 

Parmelee,  Maurice  1  46  ff. 
Parole,  21,  139 


Physical  condition  of  misdemeanants,  56, 

92 
Pound,  Roscoe,  103,  149 
Preston  School  of  Industry,  120 
Probation,  21,  139 
Prostitutes,  36,  66 
Psychopathic  work,  25,  131 
Punishment,  origins  of,  ix 

Race,  48 

Receiving  stations,  128,  136 

Recidivism,  52,  91 

Residence,  54 

Retributive  justice,  x,  154 

Rhode  Island   State  Workhouse,   v,   29 


State  control  of  jails,  20 
Stephen,  Sir  James  Fitzjames,  73 
Supervision  of  jails,  14 
Suspended  sentence,  7,  22 
Switzerland,  31 

Thomas,  W.  I.,  ix 
Thorndike,  E.  L.,  62,  63,  103 
Train,  Arthur,  84 
Transportation,  13,  136 

Unified  correctional  system,  128  fT. 

Vagrants,  31,  64 
Vermont,  24 


San  Bernardino  County  Jail,  23 

Sentence,  6 

Sex,  44,  88 

Sing  Sing,  94,  128 

Solenberger,  Alice  W.,  62,  65,  86 

Specialization,  31 


Wander,  Paul,  c>4 
Washington  County  Jail,  24 
Waverly  House,  37 
Witzwyl,  Switzerland,  32 
Work,  outdoor,  23 
Workhouse,  24 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  AT  LOS  ANGELES 

THE  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARY 


This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below 


■Tfctti* 


MAY  6      1942 


DECS 
IMOV  6 


1953 
1958 


fcPR  2  9  I 

xuX  2  9^ 


4  1962 


HA 


URL      ,,w" 

tar       ■ 


icA  . 


\9 


Form  I.  9    L5wi  3,'3  I 


Kit 


UNIVERSITY  of  CALIFORNIA" 


•HKAKY 


~*r- 


K 


~*>  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  ■ 


A    000  398  464    8 


